Dismissed

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2010Bail Appl./3118/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order dismissing an application for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving alleged assault on a constable. The court held that the serious nature of allegations prevented granting bail and ordered the accused to co-operate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was denied. Accused directed to surrender and co-operate with investigation. Further applications barred.

Sunil Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3118 of 2010() ----------------------------CRIME NO.338/2010 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST.

¶4

(S): ACCUSED --------------------------SUNIL, S/O.CHANDRAN M.C., MACHINGAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, AMBALANADA, POOVATHUSSERY, MALA. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶6

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ.

¶7

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

K.HEMA, J.

¶9

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.3118 of 2010

¶10

Dated 27^th July, 2010.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶13

The alleged offence is under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner attacked defacto complainant and caused injuries to him by hitting with a stone and thereby obstructed him from discharging his official duty. The defacto complainant is a KSRTC driver. The incident happened on 13.5.2010 at about 7 a.m.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that offence under Section 332 IPC will not be attracted, since no injury is sustained by defacto complainant. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The case is falsely fabricated, it is submitted.

¶15

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that wound certificate itself will reveal that defacto complainant sustained injuries on the scalp and also chest wall. He was admitted in the hospital, within 45 minutes of the incident. The injured was treated as an inpatient.

¶16

BA NO. 3118/10

¶17

¶18

On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that considering the serious nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation.

¶19

No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter.

¶20

Petition is dismissed.

¶21

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶22

tgs

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Surendran Vs State of Kerala

Sreerag Vs State of Kerala

Omana Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs Sub Inspector of Police