Jaison C. Cooper v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/26TH PHALGUNA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 280 of 2015 (C) AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.301 OF2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 10-02-2015 CRIME NO. 113/2015 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED (UNDER CUSTODY): JAISON C. COOPER AGED 36 YEARS S/O. CLEATUS, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, ROSE GARDEN LANE KUMBALANGI(VIA), PALLURUTHY.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY:

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION.

BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SRI.ASAF ALI THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.T.SANKARAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Babu Mathew P.Joseph, J.

This appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.M.C.No.301 of 2015 filed by the appellant by which his application for granting bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant is the accused in Crime No.113 of 2015 of Ernakulam South Police Station. The offence alleged is under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on the allegation that the appellant was arrested from Ernakulam on 29.1.2015 when he was found in possession of some leaflets supporting the views of CPI(Maoist) group. It is further alleged by

:: 2 ::

the prosecution that the intention of the accused was to overthrow the lawfully established Government of India and in that respect the appellant has made repeated attempts. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that the appellant has committed the offence.

4. Since 29.1.2015 the appellant has been in jail. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations levelled against the appellant are totally misconceived and baseless. He is a government servant and all his activities are within the limits of established law of the country. Merely based on some wrong impression, the appellant was arrested and produced before Court and, in turn, the Court remanded him to judicial custody.

5. Learned State Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, submits that the allegations levelled against the appellant are not baseless as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution has every reason to believe that the appellant has committed the offence alleged. He further submits that the investigation of the case is duly progressing. As of now, the continued incarceration of the appellant is not essential.

:: 3 ::

6. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties. Learned State Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the continued incarceration of the appellant is not essential in this case. At the same time, he insisted the presence of the appellant for the purpose of investigation and at the stage of trial. Admittedly, the appellant has been in jail since 29.1.2015. On considering this fact, the fact that the appellant is a government servant and the fact that the continued incarceration of the appellant is not essential, this Court is satisfied that imposing stringent conditions the appellant can be granted bail.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the appellant is granted bail imposing the following conditions:

a) The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

b) The appellant shall report before the investigating officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m..

:: 4 ::

c) The appellant shall surrender his passport before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. If he does not possess a passport, he shall file an affidavit before the Sessions Court to that effect.

d) The appellant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the written permission obtained from the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

e) The appellant shall not involve himself in any similar offence while on bail.

f) The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH) Judge ahz/