Disposed

Sajith @ Achu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC14 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4784/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court framed the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. involving a split case. The petitioner absconded after case commitment. The Court directed him to surrender to the First Class Magistrate within one week alongside producing his passport to avail regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender before the Magistrate within one week and produce passport to secure interim non-arrest.

Sajith @ Achu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 4784 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 778/2010 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SAJITH @ ACHU, AGED 27 YEARS, MANNADI THARAYIL VEETTIL, PULUMBITHEKKUM MURIYIL, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690526.

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶17

Bail Appl. No.4784 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of September 2015

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.778

¶22

of 2010 of the Oachira Police station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 308, 323, 324, 427 and 452 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner along with the co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, armed with swords and iron rod etc., formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, on 02.08.2010 at about 19.45 hours, trespassed into the internet cafe and attacked the defacto complainant. The petitioner (2^nd accused) attacked the defacto complainant with sword and caused injury to the fingers of the defacto complainant. The case has been committed to the Assistant Sessions Court, Karunagappally. The petitioner later absconded from the

¶23

Bail Appl. No.4784 of 2015 2

¶24

court.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner went to Saudi Arabia in connection with his employment and he had no intention to stay away from the Court. However, the fact is that the petitioner's case has been split-up and it is pending as L.P. No.44 of 2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappalyy. The case in respect of the other accused have been committed to the Assistant Sessions Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court on 13.08.2015 directed the petitioner to produce his passport to convince the mind of this Court that he had gone to Saudi Arabia to pursue an employment. Thereafter, on 02.09.2015, this court, after perusing the passport, passed the following interim direction.

¶28

“ Post in the next week at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the disposal of this Bail Application, provided he surrenders his

¶29

Bail Appl. No.4784 of 2015 3

¶30

passport before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally, on or before 07.09.2015.”

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶32

Considering the stage of investigation and the materials in the case diary, following directions are issued.

¶33

The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction within one week and move for regular bail. In that event, learned Magistrate shall, after giving notice to the Public Prosecutor, consider the application on merits, as expeditiously as possible, if possible on the date of surrender itself.

Sd/-

A. HARIPRASAD

JUDGE

/ True Copy / P.A. To Judge

¶38

Sajith @ Achu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajith @ Achu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Sujith S. Vs State of Kerala

P.Chacko Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Maneesha Vs State of Kerala