Dismissed

Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2008Bail Appl./1206/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. Finding merit in the Public Prosecutor's opposition, the court held that no circumstances indicated the petitioner was not guilty or that allegations were malicious. The petitioner was directed to seek regular bail through the investigating officer or magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner directed to seek regular bail via Magistrate/Investigating Officer.

Sasidharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1206 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.270/2007 OF VALLIKKUNNAM POLICE STATION

¶7

: PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, THEKKEDATH VEEDU, THAZHAVAVADAKKU MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.BASANT, J.

¶17

B.A.No.1206 of 2008

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of March 2008

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first accused. Altogether six persons are arrayed as accused. In the F.I.R, no accused is named. The alleged incident took place on 24/12/2007. An R.S.S worker was murdered by persons who allegedly belong to the N.D.F on 23/12/2007. As a retaliation against that, the incident in this case is alleged to have taken place. The R.S.S personnel including the petitioner had allegedly trespassed into a mosque and had indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence inside the mosque, it is alleged. The crime was registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has been brought on the array of accused as the name of the first accused in the course of investigation. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. He apprehends arrest.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he has been brought on the array of accused without any justification. There is another incident which took place near the scene of occurrence in this crime. The petitioner had suffered injuries in that incident. Merely because of that, the petitioner has now been brought on the array of accused in this crime. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶22

B.A.No.1206/08

¶23

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation conducted so far reveals the presence and participation of the petitioner in the crime in question. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal course.

¶25

I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no circumstances available in this case to assume that the petitioner is not guilty or that the allegations are raised mala fide against him. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner were granted anticipatory bail and is not effectively interrogated, the identity of the co-accused may not be revealed. In these circumstances, I find substance in the contention that the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶26

B.A.No.1206/08

¶27

¶28

In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

¶29

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶30

jsr

¶31

// True Copy// PA to Judge

B.A.No.1206/08 4

B.A.No.1206/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007

Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Sakkeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala & Another

C.S.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Joby Thomas Manammoottil Vs S.I of Police, Kuravilangad

Rajeev Vs C.I.of Police,Wadakkanchery Represented

Ani Vs Kerala State Rep.by Its S.I. of Police