Dismissed

Santhosh and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2545/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons charged under IPC Sections 341, 323, 324, and 452. The court held that the existence of a case file and counter is insufficient grounds for bail post-chargesheet, directing the petitioners to approach the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; petitioners directed to approach trial court for regular bail.

Santhosh and Others Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2545 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.427/10 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶8

¶9

SANTHOSH.T.T., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN, THURUTHIPPILLIL HOUSE, EAST KADATHY, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

BIJU K.O., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O OUSEPH, KARIPPACHIRAYIL HOUSE, EAST KADATHY, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

UMESH K.P., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PONNAN, KARIPPACHIRAYIL HOUSE, EAST KADATHY, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.HEMA, J.

¶19

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.2545 of 2010

¶20

Dated 15^th June, 2010.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323,

¶24

324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) committed trespass into the house of defacto complainant and assaulted him using iron rod and stick, after wrongfully restraining him. The mother of defacto complainant was also assaulted, when she came to intervene.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that originally the offences under Sections 143 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code were included, but later those sections were deleted. It is also submitted that accused nos.4 to 6 in the F.I.R. were also deleted. There is a case and counter and the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is deliberately included. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet is already laid. Petitioners were not available for investigation.

¶27

BA NO.2545/10

¶28

¶29

On hearing both sides, I find no exceptional

¶30

circumstances to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a case and counter is not sufficient to invoke Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since charge sheet is laid, petitioner may approach the trial court and seek regular bail.

¶31

This petition is dismissed.

¶32

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶33

tgs

Santhosh and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh and Others 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

Balakrishna Bhat Vs the S.H.O. Varkala Police Station

Samad Vs State

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecut

Nishar Vs State of Kerala

Reji Vs the Si of Police, Ezhukone