The Kerala High Court disposed of an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of assaulting police officers during a public disturbance involving obscene utterances, argued against arrest. The court dismissed the application due to the serious nature of the offences and potential hindrance to investigation.
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 WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 414 of 2010() ---------------------------CRIME NO.1/2010 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED -----------------------------------------DAYAL, S/O.VIJAYAN, VADAKEDATH HOUSE, RANNI-VAIKOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN
RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI, THROUGHTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
B.A.No.414 of 2010
Dated this the 17th 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 petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Ranni Police Station.
BA No.414/2010
2
Police earlier. The Circle Inspector of Police had booked a case against them on an earlier occasion. Accused Nos.1 and 2, taking advantage of the situation, attacked the Circle Inspector of Police. They shouted to kill him. Obeying the words of accused Nos.1 and 2, the other accused persons pelted stones against the police personnel. Several policemen sustained injuries. The Circle Inspector of Police sustained very serious injuries. He was taken to Marthomma Hospital. Later, he was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
BA No.414/2010
3
their request, the other accused also indulged in the criminal activities to attack the police personnel who were discharging their official duties.
BA No.414/2010
4
the petitioner and the other accused persons are serious in nature. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Moreover, in a case of this nature, I am of the view that the accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only because he could manage to be out of the reach of the police for several days. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that if arrested, he would be manhandled, harassed and humiliated by the police. I record the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigating officer would not make room for any allegation that the petitioner was manhandled. I do not find any ground to allow the Bail Application.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving serious assault on police personnel.
Whether the petitioner's apprehension of police harassment justifies granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DAYAL
STATE
K.T.SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
