Dismissed

Ismail v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Apr 2016Bail Appl./1635/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the first accused. The rule against double jeopardy in bail matters was applied, noting a prior order denying relief to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner retains the option to surrender and seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not entitled to pre-arrest bail; option to surrender and seek regular bail remains unfettered.

Ismail Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/9TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1635 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 238/2014 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

ISMAIL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, NELLIYALATH HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR P O, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

THROUGH S I OF POLICE, CHOKIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR , REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶16

¶17

B.A.1635 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated 29^th April, 2016

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail preferred by the 1^st accused in crime No.238 of 2014 of Chokli police station. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 308 (A) r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶22

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 10.3.2014 at about 11.30 a.m, the petitioner along with others had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons.

¶23

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

4.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit

¶25

B.A.1635/16

¶26

¶27

that as per order dated 24.11.2015 in B.A.6972

¶28

of 2015 this Court had granted relief to accused Nos.2 to 4 and 7 but had denied the same to the petitioner herein.

¶29

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that most of the other accused have either surrendered or have been arrested and in view of the same, there is change of circumstance, which would entitle him to obtain the relief as prayed for .

¶30

6.In the facts and circumstances and in view of the previous order passed by this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail.

¶31

7.However, the option of the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek for bail, shall remain unfettered. If the petitioner so appears

¶32

B.A.1635/16

¶33

¶34

and applies for bail, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on

¶35

merits and in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶38

Mrcs/29.4.2016

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

P.S.To Judge

Ismail v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Dr. a.Jehangeer Vs State of Kerala

Peter T.V Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Meenangadi

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Shijil C. Vs State of Kerala