Jijo @ Kunjumon v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 7619 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1379/2015 OF NOORNADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. .......

PETITIONER/NOT ARRAYED AS AN ACCUSED:

------------------------------------------------------------------- JIJO @ KUNJUMON, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPAL, J.J. VIHAR, MUTHUKATTUKARA, NOORNADU , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SRI.ARUN BOSE.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

--------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORNADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C. RASHEED.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ B.A No.7619 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2015.

O R D E R

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

Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.1379 of 2015 of Noornadu Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 308 I.P.C. 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 20-11-2015 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and another person with dangerous weapons and caused grave injuries. According to the prosecution, the incident was in retaliation of a previous incident whereby the defacto complainant challenged the act of the accused consuming liquor behind his shop. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his name is not mentioned in the first information statement. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by contending that

B.A No.7619 of 2015 2 there are statements of witnesses indicating the role of the petitioner in the incident and he was also wielding weapons at the time of the attack.

The materials in the case diary do not support the contention of the petitioner. Hence, bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

amk //True copy// P.A to Judge