Dismissed

Gopakumar.G v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2015Bail Appl./17/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The court held that the petitioner, a habitual offender with serious antecedents, was charged with grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC involving enmity. The prima facie evidence suggested complicity. Considering the gravity of allegations and the accused's criminal history, the court denied the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; anticipatory bail denied.

Gopakumar.G Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/30TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 17 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2511/2014 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

GOPAKUMAR.G, AGED 36 YEARS, SANAL BHAVANAM, MENAMPALLY MURI, PATHIYOOR.P.O., KAYAMKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SMT.PARVATHY NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM-690 502

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶19

¶20

B.A. No.17 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2015

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime

¶26

No.2511/2014 of Kayamkulam Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

¶27

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 13.09.2014 at 2.30 p.m., out of his previous enmity towards the defacto complainant , the petitioner beat the defacto complainant on his left hand with an iron bar tied in a bathing towel, thereby causing fracture of his left ulna.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The contents of the CD prima facie reveal the

¶31

complicity of the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious. The investigation of

¶32

BA.17/2015

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

this case is not over. It has been reported that the petitioner is a habitual offender, involved in Crime Nos.204/2003, 395/2013 and 205/2014 of Kayamkulam Police Station also. Considering the series of serious criminal antecedents on the part of the petitioner and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that he is not entitled to get the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶35

In the result, this bail application is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶37

aks/20/01

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

PA to Judge

Gopakumar.G v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopakumar.G v. the 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

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Vappu @ Bappu Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs the State of Kerala

Mishal Khan Vs the State of Kerala

M.Kunhiraman Vs the State of Kerala

Naresh Vs the State of Kerala