Dismissed

Sujith S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2015Bail Appl./1948/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. The court held that materials in the case diary did not prima facie show the petitioner's plea of innocence and, given the nature of allegations involving the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, bail was not inclined upon.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed; no anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

Sujith S. Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/23RD BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1948 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

SUJITH S., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, POOVANAMVILA VADAKKETHILVEEDU, MATHRA (P.O), KARAVALOOR, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶18

Bail Appl. No.1948 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of September 2015

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.350 of

¶23

2015 of the Sreekariyam Police station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.323, 354, 354A(i)&(ii), 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution case is that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant, a member of the scheduled caste community, and had sexual intercourse with her for the last 6 years. That apart, he received Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the defacto complainant with a promise to return and he defaulted in returning the amount with an intention to cheat her.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the

¶25

Bail Appl. No.1948 of 2015 2

¶26

case diary.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no relationship with the defacto complainant. In fact his friend had promised to marry the defacto complainant from which he resiled. The petitioner only tried to set-right the relationship and he is innocent of all the allegations.

¶28

The materials in the case diary do not prima facie show the plea of total innocence raised by the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations and the involvement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶32

/ True Copy /

¶33

¶34

P.A. To Judge

Sujith S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith S. 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

Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

L.Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

P.Chacko Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Maneesha Vs State of Kerala

Sajith @ Achu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police