The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court noted the gravity of offences involving obstruction of police and unlawful assembly, deciding that custodial interrogation was required.
Bail application dismissed with an observation that custodial interrogation is required.
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 MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 311 of 2010(B )
CRIME NO.574 OF 2009 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2,5 TO 8, 12, 13, 14, 16,17 & 3
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON 08/03/2010, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010
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. 1,2,5 to 8, 12 to 14, 16, 17 and 3 in Crime No.574 of 2009 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District.
B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
about 5.20 P.M., they saw six persons beating up one person. On seeing the police party, the assailants tried to escape. However, the police could apprehend Rahul and Baiju. The police found that due to the attack by the assailants, one Ajmal had sustained injuries. The injured person was sent to the police station in a vehicle. The police party took the two apprehended assailants in the police jeep. While the police party reached Elamba bus stop, about 40 persons who belong to C.P.I.(M), intercepted the jeep, shouted slogans and obstructed the police from moving forward. They tried to rescue Rahul and Baiju from police custody. The Sub Inspector of Police told them that they had unlawfully assembled and their acts were illegal. At that time, the aforesaid 40 persons unlawfully restrained the police personnel, forcibly obstructed them from discharging their official duties and unlawfully rescued Rahul and Baiju from police custody. Since the number of police personnel were less, they could not prevent the illegal acts of the offenders.
B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
appeared in the case. He submitted that the Government would take serious steps to prevent recurrence of such instances. “We can’t spare anybody who violates law”, submitted the learned Director General of Prosecution. The learned Director General of Prosecution also submitted that when such instances came to his notice, strict instructions were given to the concerned. The submissions made by the learned Director General of Prosecution are recorded.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Whether granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Binoy.P.V and others
Director General of Prosecution
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
