Dismissed

K.Jayaprakash v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2015Bail Appl./82/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Kerala held that the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not been arraigned as an accused despite investigation reports citing allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Application sought under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as not maintainable due to the petitioner not being arraigned as an accused.

K.Jayaprakash Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936`

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 82 of 2015

¶6

*** CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA THE NAME OF THE POLICE STATION, BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT OCCURING IN THE LOCKET PORTION OF BA.82/2015 IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED ON RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT AS PER ORDER DATED 14/1/15 IN CRL.MA.311/2015.**

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

K.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.KUPPUSWAMY, HOUSE NO.120, SURAMYA HOUSE NANNIYODE EAST, VANDITHAVALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.RADHIKA P.GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

============================

¶17

B.A. No. 82 of 2015

¶18

============================= Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2015

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he is apprehending arrest in connection with some non bailable offences, by the

¶22

Ranni Police.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor has produced a report of the investigating officer, which shows that a complaint has been preferred by a lady leveling serious allegations against the petitioner that he had hacked into her face book account and posted pornographic materials and forwarded the same to her husband and other friends. Even though the petitioner was called upon to reach the Police Station for verifying the allegations, he has not turned up. So far he has not been arraigned as an accused. As he is not made an accused, the application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In

¶25

B.A. No.82 of 2015 2

¶26

case the Police want to arrest the petitioner in connection with

¶27

the offences involved in the crime, he shall be given an opportunity to approach this Court once again under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

With the said observations, this bail application is

dismissed.

Sd/-

B. KEMAL PASHA

JUDGE

DSV/3/2/15

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

K.Jayaprakash v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jayaprakash 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Haneef Vs State of Kerala

K.M. Susela Vs State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs State of Kerala

Shyam, S/O.Kuttappan Vs the State of Kerala

K.C.Joseph Vs State of Kerala