Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Manu vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2019

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    THURSDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 20TH POUSHA, 1940

                      Bail Appl..No. 8729 of 2018

CRIME NO. 2491/2018 OF Thiruvalla Police Station , Pathanamthitta



PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


             MANU
             AGED 35 YEARS
             S/O.KUNJACHAN, WEST OTHERA, KUTTOOR VILLAGE,
             THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
             SMT.NITHYA VIJAYAN
             SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
             SRI.S.SREEDEV



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
       1     STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA.

      2      SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             THIRUVALLA.689 101



OTHER PRESENT:
             SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 8729 of 2018

                                2

                          O R D E R

The petitioner herein is arrayed as the sole accused in crime No.2491/2018 of Thiruvalla Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

2. According to the the prosecution, on 11.12.2018 at 4 a.m, the petitioner herein trespassed into the office of a Primary Health Centre by removing the roofing tiles and committed theft of Rs.500/- from the purse of the defacto complainant. Contending that he is innocent of the crime and that he is psychically disabled to the extent of 90% and he sought to be implicated on the basis of a doubt, bail application is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure A, which is a certificate issued by the Board for disability assessment relating to the petitioner herein. It shows that the petitioner herein had a 90% ophthalmic disability due to high myopia of both eyes. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be believed that the petitioner herein committed the above offence.

4. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor Bail Appl..No. 8729 of 2018 3 pointed out that, on hearing the noise, the defacto complainant went to the room and found the petitioner herein inside the room. She identified him by name and as the person who had come there for some work about an year back. According to the Prosecutor, the claim of disability in any manner did not affect his visibility since he had entered the room after removing the tiles.

5. In the light of the above certificate and also the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to permit the petitioner herein to surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today. If he so surrenders, after interrogation and identification, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day of surrender. The court below shall take up the bail application filed by him on the same day of his appearance with notice to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and shall pass appropriate orders on the same day.

Sd/-


                                                 SUNIL THOMAS

shg                                                 JUDGE