Dismissed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2013Bail Appl./9/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. The petitioner, charged with offences including assault and动辄 trespass, sought bail alleging innocence and ulterior motives. The court held that the investigation was in an infant stage and the charges were serious, making the matter a fit case for anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender before Investigating Officer.

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9 of 2013 (A)

¶6

CRIME NO. 2300/2012 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRADEEP, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O KARUTHAKUNJU,MULAYAMKOTTU VEEDU, KULAKKADA EAST (P.O),KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

---------------------------------------------------BA No.9 of 2013

¶17

Dated this the 18^th day of January 2013

¶18

Order

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2300/12 of

¶20

Kottarakkara Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.452, 294(b), 323, 324 & 325 IPC.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 10.12.2012 at 6 pm, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted her using a stick, causing injuries to her. The petitioner would say that he is totally innocent and has been implicated with ulterior motives. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed two sovereigns of gold from his sister and had returned the same after several months. On 2.12.2012 when the petitioner was out of station, the defacto complainant came to his house and picked up a quarrel with his wife and assaulted her, causing injuries to her and she had sought medical treatment as would be evident from Annexure A1 medical certificate produced along with the application. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant is the real aggressor as she, on the date of incident, had come to the house of the petitioner and attacked him. In order to cover up her deeds, a false complaint has been laid.

¶22

BA 9/13

¶23

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶25

application and pointed out that the real facts are not as stated by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the investigation is only at an infant stage.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having gone through the CD made available for perusal, the claim of the petitioner that he is totally innocent, does not appear to be correct. However, a further probe into the matter is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice is to say that considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the manner in which the acts are alleged to have been committed by him and the fact that the investigation is only at an infant stage, it is felt that this is not a fit case warranting exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 of Cr.PC. The application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 24.01.13, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM concerned. On an application being filed by the petitioner before the JFCM concerned for bail,

¶27

BA 9/13

¶28

¶29

the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon by the JFCM concerned in accordance with law after hearing the APP, if possible, on the same day of filing the application.

¶30

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶31

sta

¶32

BA 9/13 4

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Jayarajan Vs State of Kerala

Maheen Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Hashif T.M. @ Asif Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

A.Lakshmi Vs the State of Kerala