Dismissed

C.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5617/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC arising from offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Rejecting the argument regarding a related case against the petitioner's father, the court held the case was not fit for bail due to the nature of the injury and potential impact on investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

C.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5617 of 2011() -------------------------CRIME NO.176/2011 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------C.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, CHEERAMATH HOUSE, KOMBANKALLU.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SMT.JENCY MICHEAL

¶8

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTUR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

Bail Appln.No.5617 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2011

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.176 of 2011 of Melattur Police Station, Malappuram District.

¶18

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The prosecution case is that on 27/06/2011, the accused pelted stones against the de facto complainant and when he fell down, he was attacked by the petitioner with a stick resulting in the fracture of both the legs and fracture of hand of the de facto complainant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant is the accused in Crime No.225 of 2009 of Melattur Police Station in which the injured is the father of the petitioner. The de facto complainant stabbed the father of the petitioner and the offence alleged against the former is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The

¶21

Bail Appln.No.5617/2011

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

learned counsel also submitted that the de facto complainant is involved in several criminal cases whereas the petitioner is not involved in any case.

¶24

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and injury sustained by the de facto complainant, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The fact that there is a case that the de facto complainant stabbed the father of the petitioner is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶27

skj

¶28

True copy

¶29

P.A. to Judge

C.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Abdul Salam 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

S.Murukesan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Prajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Subash @ Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Amal Darsan Vs State

Sudheesh Chandran @ Balu and Another Vs the S.I.of Police, Perunad and Another

Prathapan K Vs State of Kerala