Dismissed

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 May 2016Bail Appl./3168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC for pre-arrest bail, the Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner argued a change of circumstances, including the deletion of an accused and his re-positioning as the second accused. The Court found no justification to grant bail given the serious injuries to the complainant, permitting the petitioner to surrender and move for regular bail subjec

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed; petitioner permitted to surrender and move for regular bail before the court below.

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3168 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 391/2016 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJESH, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, ALAPPURATHU VADAKKETHIL, KOTHAPURAM, KARALAI P.O, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 521.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. --------------------Bail Appln. No.3168 of 2016 -------------------------Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was originally arraigned as the 1st accused in Crime No. 391 of 2016 of Sasthamcotta Police Station which was registered at the instance of one Anoop alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 308 r/w section 34 of the IPC. Later, offences punishable under sections 308 and 27 of the Arms Act were also incorporated. The petitioner had moved an application for pre-arrest bail and this Court as per order dated 28.3.2016 in B.A. No.2139/2016 had rejected the same.

¶19

This present petition is filed contending that there has been a change of circumstance. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the wound certificate, two known named persons had inflicted injuries on the de facto complainant at 9.30 PM on 29.02.2006. In the course of

¶20

B.A. No.3168/2016

¶21

¶22

investigation, the 3rd accused was deleted from the array of the accused. The petitioner who was originally the 1st accused has now been arrayed as the 2nd accused in the crime. According to the learned counsel, he is innocent of the allegations and the deletion of one of the accused would reveal that the allegations are false.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submission of the learned counsel and contended that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR. Incised wound having a dimension of 5.5 cms was inflicted on the parietal region of the head. In view of the serious injuries inflicted on the de facto complainant, there is no justification in granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Having regard to the rival submissions and considering the nature and gravity of the allegations it does not appear to me that this Court will be justified in exercising its powers under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a direction be granted to the

¶25

B.A. No.3168/2016

¶26

¶27

petitioner to surrender before the court below and to move for regular bail. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court below and if any application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered judiciously and on its merits.

¶28

This application shall stand dismissed.

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)

¶30

vps

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin Vs the State of Kerala

Moideen Vs the State of Kerala

Manju Vs State of Kerala

John Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Sanoj Vs State of Kerala