The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3. The court held that given the nature of the offence and the injuries sustained by the complainant, the case was not fit for granting anticipated bail.
Bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 2233 of 2009()
------------------------------------CRIME NO.146/2009 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION.
APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, CHERPU POLICE STATION.
SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
B.A. No.2233 of 2009
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438
of the code of criminal procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.146/2009 of Cherpu Police Station.
B.A. No.2233 /2009
2
circumstances, I do not think that this is fit case where the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail .
The Bail Application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the nature of the offences and the injuries sustained.
Whether the present case is fit for granting anticipatory bail under the circumstances.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
K.B. Manoj
U.V. Vinoj
State of Kerala
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
