Dismissed

Ajith @ Renjith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Apr 2016Bail Appl./2463/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 438 CrPC was filed by the 9th accused challenging a judgment in CRMP 392/2016. The court dismissed the application as it found prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner and deemed custodial interrogation necessary due to the gravity of allegations and prior similar offenses.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.

Ajith @ Renjith Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/26TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2463 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRMP 392/2016 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 16-02-2016 CRIME NO. 283/2016 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/9TH ACCUSED:

¶8

AJITH @ RENJITH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAMANAN ACHARI, PARAPPALLIL THEKKATHIL, PADANAYARKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN CODE. 690 547.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.O.MINCY

¶10

SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- PIN-690 547.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y. LALISA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

Bail Application No. 2463 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of April, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime No. 283 of 2016 of Karunagappally Police Station, registered for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 308, 367, 395 and 506 (ii) read with Sec. 149 of IPC.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 19-1-2016 at about 2.50 p.m., the petitioner and his friends, in furtherance of their common object abducted the de facto complainant and his friend in a car and attacked them with swords, player etc., causing injuries on them. Thereafter, they robbed the ATM Card and Aadhar Card of the de facto complainant and the mobile phone of the friend of the de facto complainant.

¶21

The petitioner filed this application under

¶22

Jba2463/2016

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

Section 438 of the Code.

¶25

Heard. Perused the case diary. The learned

¶26

Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he had no connection with the offences alleged. It appears from the case diary that there are materials to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged. The involvement of the petitioner in other similar offences has to be ascertained, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner and the other accused even plucked the nails of the de facto complainant. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified.

¶28

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

¶29

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

ani/

Ajith @ Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith @ Renjith 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

Swarlal K. Vs State of Kerala

Saleem Vs State of Kerala

Subair C. Vs State of Kerala

Suthan Vs State of Kerala

Mohemmed Shahid Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker @ Abeek Vs State of Kerala