Dismissed

Saji v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2766/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged assault under IPC Sections 354 and 323. The court directed the petitioner to seek regular bail from the learned Magistrate, noting that the magistrate must examine the records to determine if the charges constitute simple assault.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail; pre-arrest bail application disposed of.

Saji Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2766 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.767/2016 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THANKAN, RESIDING AT PARAYIDAM POIKAYIL, PADATHUMPALAM, VALLAMKULAM KIZHAKKU, ERAVIPEROOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.

¶12

2.STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.2766 of 2016

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail on the

¶22

apprehension of arrest as accused in Crime No.767/2016 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, registered initially under Sections 452, 323, 324, and 354 IPC. Later, Sections 452 and 324 IPC were deleted, and Section 294(b) was added. Thus, now investigation is proceeding under Sections 294 (b), 354 and 323 IPC. On a perusal of the materials, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail. Section 452 IPC, which is very often used by the police in all cases of house trespass stands deleted. The petitioner apprehends remand to judicial custody in view of the allegations under Section 354 IPC. The learned Magistrate will have to examine the case records and see whether this is in fact a case under Section 354 IPC, or only a case of simple assault. It is

¶23

¶24

B.A.No.2766 of 2016

¶25

submitted by the learned counsel that there is already a crime against the husband of the complainant herein under Sections 376(1), 363, 509 and 377 IPC, registered by the police on the information given by the wife of this petitioner. Copy of the FIR in the said Crime No.49/2016 was shown to me during the hearing. All the factual aspects including the said crime will be considered by the learned Magistrate in taking decision on the request for regular bail. It is settled that a mere assault on a woman will not come under Section

¶26

354 IPC. Any way, let appropriate decision be taken by the learned Magistrate on the request on regular bail. Giving such liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail, this application is disposed of.

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Saji v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Kunhikoya Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Madanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Midhun R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Siyad H Vs State of Kerala