Dismissed

Narayanan Bhanu v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Apr 2008Bail Appl./2007/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application for anticipatory bail. It held that the case is fit for regular bail proceedings before the Magistrate and refused to exercise discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The second petitioner must follow the ordinary procedure.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was denied; applicants directed to seek regular bail before Magistrate.

Narayanan Bhanu Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2007 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CR. 176/08 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

NARAYANAN BHANU,PUTHUVALIL VEEDU KARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶10

LEELA PUTHUVALIL VEEDU,KARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATHANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R. BASANT, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A.No. 2007 of 2008

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners 1 and 2

¶23

are a couple – husband and wife. They apprehend arrest as accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 308 and 324 I.P.C.

¶24

The learned Prosecutor at the outset submits that the

¶25

first petitioner is not an accused in that crime and only the second petitioner is the accused in the crime. She is the sole accused. On 14.3.2008 she is alleged to have inflicted three serious incised injuries with a sickle on the defacto complainant, a woman. The alleged motive referred to in the F.I. Statement is the conduct of the defacto complainant throwing stones at a pet dog. But the case of the prosecution is that the real motive is not that. There was an allegation that the defacto complainant is having illicit intimacy with the first petitioner and that allegedly had prompted the second petitioner to indulge in such culpable conduct against

¶26

B.A.No. 2007 of 2008

¶27

¶28

the defacto complainant. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has yet another story about the motive. According to him, the daughter of the second petitioner was indecently assaulted by the son of the defacto complainant. To cover up the fault of the son of the defacto complainant in that incident, totally false and frivolous allegations are being raised by the defacto complainant against the second petitioner herein. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the second petitioner.

¶29

The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the investigation revealed that the real motive has not been stated in detail in the F.I. Statement. But in the nature of the motive, there is nothing artificial if the defacto complainant does not want to make a clean breast of the nature of the motive in a voluntary statement given by her. The learned Prosecutor submits that the injuries described in the wound certificate are telltale indications of the nature of the motive entertained by the assailant against the defacto complainant.

¶30

I have been taken through the details of the three incised injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. Having considered all the

¶31

B.A.No. 2007 of 2008

¶32

¶33

relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the second petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course.

¶34

This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the second petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

¶35

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶36

Narayanan Bhanu v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan Bhanu v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

Chandran and Another Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Manaf Vs S.I. of Police

Saji and Others Vs State of Kerala

Arun Babu Vs State of Kerala