Dismissed

Jose Linaker Celho v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2012Bail Appl./2141/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered an application for bail regarding a fatal road accident where two pedestrians died. The court analyzed the charge under Section 304 IPC and rejected the submission that a final report entitled the accused to release. The application was dismissed due to the gravity of the offence and lack of change in circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed, refusing the petitioner release on bail.

Jose Linaker Celho Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/16TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2141 of 2012 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN BA.8005/2011 DATED 12-12-2011

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSE LINAKER CELHO, S/O.ANTONY DONAIL CELHO, AGED 19 YEARS, DAIVATHUM PARAMBIL HOUSE, LISE HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682018.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶10

SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.PRINCY XAVIER SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, EAST EDAPALLY.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2012 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

LSN

¶17

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 2141 OF 2012

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.11042/2011 of Kochi City Traffic Police Station (East), Edapally. The offences alleged against him are under section 304 of IPC and section 134 (a) and (b) of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶23

It is alleged that on 01.09.2011 at 1.30 PM, the accused drove a car through Kundannoor-Vyttila road and hit against 3 women. Two of them died on the spot and other woman sustained serious injuries. After the hit, the car was not stopped by the accused. He drove fast. The local people chased the car. The police was informed. The accused however escaped. So he could not be arrested.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was purely an accident, so the charge cannot be laid under section 304 of IPC. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while driving the vehicle, the petitioner

¶25

B.A.No.2141/2012 -2-

¶26

had no intention to cause death so as to attract section 304 of IPC. The petitioner had knowledge that by his act, death was likely to be caused to the pedestrians. That knowledge can be inferred or discerned from the evidence and circumstances available on record, learned Public Prosecutor submits. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the vehicle was driven in such a way that the accused could certainly be imputed with the knowledge that his car will hit the pedestrian on the road. With that knowledge, he drove the car so fast that it hit three women of whom two died on the spot. It is true that if it was only a rash and negligent act it would attract section 304A of IPC. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra in 2012 (1) KHC SN30(SC) , the learned Public Prosecutor submits that a person responsible for reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, he can be attributed with the

¶27

B.A.No.2141/2012

¶28

-3-

¶29

knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability under section 304. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no impediment in law for charging offender for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC. It is also worthwhile to note that the application for anticipatory bail was earlier filed by this petitioner. That petition was considered by this Court and it was dismissed as per A5 order.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since final report has been filed, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. This submission is also stiffly resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor, pointing out that accused/petitioner could evade being arrested by the Police by exerting influence or otherwise but that is not a reason to say that there is a change of circumstance entitling him to get bail in a very serious case of this nature. Earlier, it was stated, at the time of filing the petition, that he has to appear for the examination. That period already expired. It is also seen that subsequently, another petition was filed

¶31

B.A.No.2141/2012 -4-

¶32

presumably under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that matter the learned counsel argued for sometime and then sought permission to withdraw that petition and hence that petition was also dismissed.

¶33

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the circumstances mentioned above, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is hence dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶35

¶36

//True copy//

¶37

P.A. to Judge

Jose Linaker Celho v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Linaker Celho 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala

Manutty @ Sharafudhin Vs State of Kerala

Maju V.M Vs State of Kerala

Karayi Rajan Vs CBI

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Jaison.P.J. Vs State of Kerala