Gilse Joseph v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 6831 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1260/2015 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. .....

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

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

1. GILSE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EDAKADATHY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

2. JAINAS MATHEWS JAMES, S/O. JAMES, AGED 24 YEARS, VALIYAKULATHIL, PAMPAVALLY NORTH P.O., ERUTHUVAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

3. JACOB THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 28 YEARS, KATTOR, KANAMALA P.O., ARATTUKAYAM, KOTTAYAM.

4. SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, EETTICKAL, THULAPALLY P.O., ANGELVALY, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ B.A.No.6831 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of November, 2015

O R D E R

Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.1260 of 2015 of Kanjirappally Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 363, 323 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Heard both sides.

4.

Leaned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners 2 to 4 are not arrayed as accused in the crime as of now and not wanted for arrest. This submission is recorded. Bail application in respect of those accused stands dismissed.

5.

Prosecution case is that on 17.10.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the first accused and other accused persons abducted one Saji Thomas in a car. Defacto complainant is the worker of Saji Thomas.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

B.A.No.6831 of 2015 that the persons abducted is a person known to the accused person and there is no complaint preferred by them.

7.

In answer to this argument the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only after arresting the first accused, identity of the other accused could be revealed on interrogation.

8.

Considering the nature of allegations and the gravity of offences, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.

The bail application is dismissed.

Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge