Dismissed

Rajendran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016Bail Appl./186/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail application of an accused involved in a case where he was alleged to have facilitated the use of a sword causing grievous injury. The Court, considering the severity of the charges and time elapsed, held it not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed as the court held the case was not fit for bail at this stage.

Rajendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 186 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1755/2013 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED A3:

¶8

RAJENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANA PILLAI, RAJ BHAVAN, MUTTARA P.O, ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2016 ALONG WITH BA. 200/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

======================= Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2016

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.1755/2013 of Pooyappally Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2013 due to a dispute that arose between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant, the 1^st accused took out a sword and hit on the leg of the defacto complainant. He sustained serious injuries and was taken to the hospital. It is alleged that the remaining accused facilitated the commission of crime by the 1^st accused.

¶20

Even though the specific overtact of use of weapon is attributed to the 1^st accused, there are allegations

¶21

that three persons had facilitated the 1^st accused in hitting

¶22

B.A. No.186 of 2016 & - 2- B.A. No.200 of 2016

¶23

others. The discharge summary of the injured shows that he was referred to the Medical College Hospital and had undergone treatment till 7.1.2014. He had sustained injury on the leg and patella tendon repair was done.

¶24

Having regard to the nature of allegation, the use of weapon and the time at which the incident occurred, I feel that it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner at this length of time. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

The petitioner offered to surrender. In the event of their surrender and the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application if any filed, on the same day itself.

¶26

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶27

SKV

Rajendran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran Pillai 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

Aneeshkumar M.G. Vs State of Kerala

Shinu Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

Kunjappan @ Pareeth Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Mala Police Station

Shaji K.J Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala