Sinoy Peter v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/7TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 6772 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 840/2015 OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 :

-------------------------------------------------------

1. SINOY PETER, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.PETER, CHARAMKULATHU HOUSE, MOOLAMPILLY KADAMAKUDY P.O., ERNAKULAM.

2. JOHN BIJOY, S/O.STANLEY, AGED 28 YEARS THITTAYIL HOUSE, MOOLAMPILLY KADAMAKUDY P.O., ERNAKULAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.

SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR.

SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN SRI.JERRY VARGHESE SRI. SREENATH S.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ABDUL KAREEM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ B.A No.6772 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2015.

O R D E R

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.840 of 2015 of Cheranalloor Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

3.

Prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 was inimical towards the defacto complainant. He is driving Uber taxi. It appears that the dispute is on account of professional rivalry between accused (taxi drivers) and the uber taxi drivers. The incident was on 07-10-2015 at about 10.00 a.m. 4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution case itself is incorrect. The petitioners are not

B.A No.6772 of 2015 2 involved in any offence. Petitioners are taxi drivers. There is an ongoing dispute between the ordinary taxi drivers and uber taxi drivers. In connection with that dispute, a false case has been foisted on them.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that the defacto complainant sustained extensive injuries in the incident. On the date of occurrence, he came to the hospital not as a taxi driver, but as a patient for consulting a doctor. Without regard to his health condition, he was attacked by the petitioners. Considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, following directions are issued : The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week from today and submit themselves for interrogation. Thereafter, they shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having

B.A No.6772 of 2015 3 jurisdiction on the same day. The petitioners are free to move for regular bail before the court below. In that event, the application shall be considered on merits as expeditiously as possible. If petitioners do not surrender in the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is free to arrest them as if no order is passed in this matter.

Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, amk JUDGE. //True copy// P.A to Judge