Dismissed

Hari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8329/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in a case involving criminal breach of peace and causing hurt. The court held that the allegations were serious and custodial interrogation was necessary for a proper investigation, making a grant of bail inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The Bail Application is dismissed and the petitioners are denied the relief sought.

Hari Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8329 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.618 OF 2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

¶9

HARI, S/O BALAKRISHANAN, KUTTIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE,

¶10

ORIPURAM, CHENNITHALA P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

UDAYAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, KUTTIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE,

¶12

ORIPURAM, CHENNITHALA P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.ACHANKUNJU

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KERLA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 8329 OF 2011

¶21

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2011

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.618 of 2011 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha District.

¶24

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 448, 447, 452 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution case is that on 1.10.2011 at 00.30 hours, the accused persons trespassed into the house where the defacto complainant was staying, and attacked her and her husband with iron rods. It is also alleged that the accused persons destroyed the motor bike belonging to the husband of the defacto complainant and caused a loss of `20,000/-. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the mother of the defacto complainant eloped with the first

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 8329 OF 2011

¶27

:: 2 ::

¶28

accused. This resulted in the divorce of the marriage between the mother and father of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the offence was committed to see that the defacto complainant is ousted from the house.

¶29

The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case.

¶30

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶31

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶32

ahz/

Hari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari 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

Aravind & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

K.T.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Ravi.G.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Yadhun Gireesh Vs State of Kerala

S.R.Sreejith Kumar and Others Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala Rep:by P.Prosecutor