Dismissed

Subash @ Manikuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5738/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner, a police driver accused of murdering the deceased, argued for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The Court denied bail, citing the gravity of the charge (murder), the accused's prior service suspensions involving crimes, and the risk of terrorizing witnesses and influencing evidence in the locality.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed; he was not released on bail.

Subash @ Manikuttan 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

THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5738 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.4820/2011 Dated 24/06/2011 CRMP.3803/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO.248/2011 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SUBASH @ MANIKUTTAN,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN,MALALILTHARAYIL,PAVUKKARAMURI, KURATTISSERI VILLAGE,MANNAR,CHANGANNUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶11

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶12

-------------------------STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶14

SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV FOR ADDL.R

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

Bail Appln.No.5738 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 04^th day of August, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.248 of 2011 of Mannar Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Originally the crime was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for unnatural death. Later the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code were incorporated. During investigation it was revealed that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the Sections of offences were altered as Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The accused is a police driver. He is the neighbour of the deceased. On a particular day he parked the police van in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased requested him to remove the van and said that if the van was parked there it would be inconvenient for the people. It was not liked by the accused. On the date of occurrence, that is, on

¶24

Bail Appln.No.5738/2011

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

16/05/2011 at about 7.15 P.M. it is alleged that the accused attacked the deceased. The deceased fell down and cried aloud that he was being killed. It is alleged that the accused stated that he would not allow the deceased to live. The allegation is that the accused kicked and stamped him on various parts of the body resulting in the fracture of 6 ribs on either side of his body. The deceased did not go to the hospital nor did he file any petition before the police. The incident was witnessed by several persons. The deceased told some of them that there was no point in his living. The deceased went to his house. He didn't take any food. On the next morning he was found dead. It was thought that the deceased committed suicide and therefore the appropriate offence was incorporated. Later it was revealed that there was no consumption of poison and the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him due to the attack of the accused. The accused was arrested on 16/05/2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted on oral instruction, that the petitioner was suspended from service on six occasions. The learned counsel appearing for the widow of the deceased submitted that the accused is involved in several

¶28

Bail Appln.No.5738/2011

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

crimes. On account of the fact that he is a police man, many of the incidents did not result in registration of crimes. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is a menace to the society and the persons in the locality were being terrorised and harassed by the petitioner.

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. If bail is granted, it is most likely that he would terrorise, intimidate and influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Taking into account the safety of the petitioner also, it would not be proper to release the petitioner at this stage, as the people of the locality are very much aggrieved by his acts and deeds. Though the charge sheet is filed in this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in the circumstances mentioned above.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶33

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶34

skj

Subash @ Manikuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash @ Manikuttan 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

B.Biju Vs Geetha and Others

Umeshan Vs State of Kerala

Ahemmed Kutty N Vs State of Kerala

S.Murukesan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Prajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another