The High Court of Kerala rejected the second bail application of the applicant, who was in custody. The Court declined to entertain the application because the applicant was aware of a directions to dispose the case before 30.9.2016 and should have waited for the disposal instead of seeking bail prematurely.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 3273 of 2016
CRIME NO. 1339/2014 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY):
DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, DILEEP BHAVAN, (LEELA MANDIRAM), KANNANMUKKU, KODUVAZHANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.3273 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th June, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C No.527 of 2015 of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. He has been in judicial custody since 1.11.2014. He seeks regular bail for the second time under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first application filed by him as B.A No.2153/2015 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the trial court to expedite trial of the case. Such a direction was made by the court on the finding that the petitioner will have to continue in custody till trial of the case is over. However, when the second application came, this Court called for a report from the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram regarding the present stage of the case. Now there is report from the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram that the case was once scheduled for trial, but the trial could not be commenced since the prosecution took steps for D.N.A Test. Anyway, the matter was reported to this Court and
B.A No.3273 of 2016
2
the trial court was granted time till 30.9.2016 for disposal of the case. It appears that the petitioner made the second application, knowing the fact very well that this Court has directed the trial court to dispose of the case before 30.9.2016. In such a situation, the petitioner should not have made the second application. He should have waited till 30.9.2016 to see whether the case could be disposed of as directed by this Court. I am not inclined to entertain this second application in view of the definite direction given by this Court in B.A 2153/2015. This application is accordingly rejected.
Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE
ma
/True copy/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second bail application should be entertained when the first application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite disposal by a specific date.
Whether the applicant acted with knowledge that the trial court had been given a deadline of 30.9.2016 for disposal of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DILEEP KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
