Kerala High Court dismissed two successive anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons in a serious assault case involving grievous injuries, citing the prior dismissal of their initial bail plea and the absence of changed circumstances.
The Bail Applications B.A. Nos. 93 and 481 of 2010 were dismissed summarily.
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 FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 481 of 2010()
-----------------------------------CRIME NO.629/2009 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 93 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
B.A. Nos. 93 & 481 of 2010
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
B.A.No.93/2010 is filed by accused No.2 in Crime
No.629/2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
B.A.No.481/2010 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in that crime for the same purpose.
No.5800/2009 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 28/10/2009.
perused and arguments were heard in detail and it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners
B.A. No. 93 & 481 of 2010
2
submitted that while disposing of B.A. No.5800/2009, the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor was that two of the accused were to be identified and that it could not be said whether Anilkumar and Shibu would be made accused in the case. Anilkumar and Shibu are the petitioners in B.A.No.481/2010. Even at the time when it was not sure whether Anilkumar and Shibu were to be included in the array of accused, the application filed by them for anticipatory bail was dismissed on the grounds mentioned therein. At present, it is clear that they are accused Nos.3 and 4.
B.A. No. 93 & 481 of 2010
3
entertaining another application for anticipatory bail when the application filed by the accused was dismissed earlier. There is no change of circumstances either.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a previous application by the same accused has been dismissed in the same case without change of circumstances.
Whether the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries sustained preclude the granting of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SHIBU KUMAR
ANIL KUMAR
STATE
K.T. SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.T. SANKARAN
Parties & counsel
