Dismissed

John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2009Bail Appl./5332/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the Kerala High Court examined allegations under Sections 450, 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court noted threats to the complainant and concluded that granting bail would hinder investigation, leading to the dismissal of the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed as the relief is not discretionary and adversely affects the investigation.

John Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5332 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO.267 OF 2009 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

JOHN, S/O. STEPHEN, AGED 32 YEARS, S.S.BHAVAN, KARUNARAKKODU, ARUVIKKARA P.O., NEDUMANGADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

B.A. NO. 5332 OF 2009

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.267 of 2009 of Aryancode Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23.9.2009, liberty was afforded to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, he appeared before the investigating officer.

¶23

The investigating officer has filed a statement dated 15.10.2009 stating that the de facto complainant has filed a petition before the investigating officer stating that she is being threatened by

¶24

B.A. NO. 5332 OF 2009

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

some persons in connection with the registration of the crime. It is also stated that on earlier occasions, there was a threat to kill the de facto complainant.

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.

¶28

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶30

ahz/

John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Leela.M. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by S.I.of Police

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Vasanthi Vs State of Kerala

Sainath Rao Vs State of Kerala

Arun S/O Chandran Vs State of Kerala