Dismissed

Mahalingam v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC22 Oct 2008Bail Appl./5739/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for anticipatory bail under Section 308 IPC regarding alleged assault with a chopper, the court held that the petitioner was not a fit case. Due to the serious nature of allegations and the petitioner's absence for over three months, bail was denied.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days.

Mahalingam Vs State of Kerala and Another — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 5739 of 2008() ----------------------------CRIME NO.607/08 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED;

¶6

¶7

MAHALINGAM, VARUR VADAKKATHIL, KANNANALLORE P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.HEMA, J.

¶16

B.A.No.5739 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2008

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The alleged offence is under Section 308 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant, who is his former divorced wife, on 12.7.2008, at about 3 p.m., by cutting with a chopper on her neck etc.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are some disputes between the petitioner and his divorced wife, who is the defacto complainant. After the divorce, petitioner married another lady and he is having children also and they are peacefully settled. But, defacto complainant started filing cases against him and the whole matter was settled. Twelve cents of property was given to her out of 16 cents of land which were in his possession and in the balance of 4 cents, his wife and children are residing with him. The defacto complainant used to come to the property for improvement, and on one particular day, there was an altercation and some incident

¶22

BA No.5739/08

¶23

¶24

happened. But, no serious injury was sustained by defacto complainant, it is submitted.

¶25

This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that no injury was sustained. There was an incised wound on the back of the neck of the defacto complainant and it was inflicted with a chopper. The offence under Section 308 IPC was included, considering the serious nature of allegations made. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, since petitioner is required for interrogation.

¶26

On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 12.7.2008 and petitioner was not available for arrest for the past more than three months.

¶27

Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation.

¶28

With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

¶29

K.HEMA, JUDGE

¶30

csl

Mahalingam v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalingam v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Shajahan.K.a. Vs State of Kerala

Vishwan @ Vishwanathan Vs Sub Inspector, Perunad Police Station

Pramod P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Janaki & Another Vs the State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed K.M. Vs the Station House Office

Nazar Vs State of Kerala