Dismissed

Byju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2013Bail Appl./2131/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two bail applications filed as security for the accused against arrests pending investigation of an assault, the Court held that no issues requiring ruling were raised and that the cases were not fit for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; accused directed to surrender to the investigating officer.

Byju Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2131 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 6/2013 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

BYJU, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.LLIYAS, KOTTAPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, NETTAYAM PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2013, ALONG WITH BA NO. 2325/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J

¶16

----------------------------------------B.A.Nos.2131 of 2013 &

¶17

2325 of 2013

¶18

----------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2013

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The above applications are filed by 2^nd and 4^th accused respectively in Crime No.6 of 2013 of Aruvikkara Police Station, Trivandrum seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"). They are proceeded with two other accused for offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 120B and 308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an incident, which occurred at about 9.15.p.m. on 02.01.2013. Accused persons, four in number, with one among them armed with deadly weapon (A1), a chopper, criminally trespassed upon the Mobile shop of de fact complainant and attacked him causing severe injuries, is the case of prosecution. The victim, de facto complainant suffered partial amputation of his left palm from the strike made by deadly weapon wielded by A1, is the allegation. Two among the accused A1 and A3 have already been arrested and on production before the court, they have been

¶21

B.A.Nos.2131 of 2013 & 2325 of 2013 2

¶22

remanded to judicial custody.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioners submitting that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the crime, seeks for granting them discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Opposing the application learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered by investigating agency, prima facie, disclose culpability of these petitioners in the brutal assault made on the victim.

¶24

After hearing the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, this is not a fit case where petitioners can be extended the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. They have to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.

¶25

Petitions are dismissed.

¶26

Sd/S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE True Copy P.A. to Judge

¶27

RKM

Byju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byju 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

Nishob Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Anshad Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sameer @ Akshay Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Shanid T. Vs the State of Kerala

Shabeer @ Sabeer Vs State of Kerala