Dismissed

Rajeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4829/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order dismissing an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, and 34 IPC for an assault involving an iron rod. Bail was denied considering the gravity of the charges and the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Rajeshkumar Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/19TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4829 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 768/2015 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

RAJESHKUMAR

¶9

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, RAMACHANDRAVILASAM, MEENADU VILLAGE CHATHANUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶18

Bail Appl. No.4829 of 2015

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2015

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.768

¶24

of 2015 of Chathannur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.323, 324 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 26.04.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner with a view to wreak vengeance against the defacto complainant for demanding excessive auto fair, attacked him with an iron rod causing him grievous injuries.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶27

that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for dislocation and he went for treatment even on 22.04.2015.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

¶29

application contending that the petitioner is involved in

¶30

Bail Appl. No.4829 of 2015 2

¶31

various crimes including the one under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the petitioner figures in the rowdy list and was once detained under the KAAPA.

¶32

Considering the nature of allegations and the antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail.

¶33

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE

¶36

/ True Copy /

¶37

P.A. To Judge

¶38

Rajeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshkumar 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

Babukuttan Vs State Ofkerala

Vimal Kumar T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews Vs State of Kerala

Anil John Zacharias Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumara Prabhu Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala