Dismissed

Ninan K.Jacob v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC9 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2265/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a third anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner in a case involving grievous hurt and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court held that there were no changed circumstances, the petitioner had evaded arrest, and no discretion could be exercised under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner must surrender to Investigating Officer without delay; no further anticipatory bail applications will be entertained.

Ninan K.Jacob Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2265 of 2010(N) -----------------------------CRIME NO.263/09 OF MANNARCADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶6

(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------

¶7

NINAN K.JACOB, S/O.K.T.CHACKO AGED 35 YEARS, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE AREEPARAMBA PO, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANNACADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

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

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.HEMA, J.

¶16

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.2265 of 2010

¶17

Dated 9^th June, 2010.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant and two others were returning from the police station on 23.9.2009 in a motor cycle, while a jeep driven by first accused, in which second and third accused were also travelling hit against the motor cycle. The allegation is that that was done deliberately by the accused with an intention to wreak vengeance against defacto complainant, for filing a complaint before the police. The defacto complainant sustained injuries, including fracture.

¶21

Petitioner's counsel is absent. There is no representation also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is the third application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation. They are evading arrest. The incident happened, as early as on 23.9.2009 and all the bail applications filed by petitioner were dismissed. This is not a fit case to grant

¶22

BA NO.2265/10

¶23

¶24

anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶25

On hearing both sides and on going through the order dated 23.3.2010 in B.A.832/10, I find that the order in an earlier anticipatory bail application, i.e., B.A.6087/09 is extracted in the said order. On considering the various aspects, this Court observed as follows :

¶26

“I do not find any ground to entertain the second application. There is no change of circumstances warranting the filing of second application for anticipatory bail. The illness or disability of the petitioner, if any, shall be taken note of at the time of the arrest of the petitioner and thereafter. For that purpose, I do not think it is necessary to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

¶27

I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. Even though the above order was passed as early as on 23.3.2010, and the application was dismissed with the observation that disability of petitioner shall be taken note of by the Investigating Officer and the court at the appropriate stage and that there is no ground to entertain the second application for anticipatory bail, petitioner has again filed an application for anticipatory bail. I do not find any reason to entertain this application for anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that petitioner is

¶28

BA NO.2265/10

¶29

¶30

not entitled for discretionary remedy under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially since he is evading arrest. Hence, the following order is passed :

¶31

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating

¶32

Officer or the court concerned without delay and co-operate with the investigation.

¶33

(2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained hereafter.

¶34

Petition is dismissed.

¶35

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶36

tgs

Ninan K.Jacob v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ninan K.Jacob 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

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.Ratnakumar Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Santhamma Vs S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station

K.a.George Vs State of Kerala

Suseela Vs State of Kerala