Disposed

Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016Bail Appl./3603/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in Bail Application No. 3603 of 2016, considered a pre-arrest bail application by the first accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, and 324 IPC with alleged implications of Section 354 IPC. The court held that the magistrate would not mechanically remand the petitioner and allowed the application, granting liberty to approach the mag

What did the court decide?

Application closed with liberty to approach the Magistrate for regular bail; Magistrate to examine records and determine nature of offences before deciding on judicial custody.

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3603 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 268/2016 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SANTHOSH

¶9

S/O.SATHYAN, AGED 26 YEARS, PLAVILA, PALLIVILA, OORUTTAMBALAM, KATTAKADA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.N.P.ASHA

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.3603 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.268/2016 of the Maranalloor Police Station registered under Sections 452, 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC. He seeks pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest and custodial torture. It appears that he brought this application on the ground that the police has incorporated Section 452 IPC in the FIR. Mere house trespass with intention to cause hurt will come only under Section 451 IPC, which is bailable under the law. Anyway, now it is submitted that the police has been making investigation under Section 354 IPC also on the basis of the statement contained in the First Information Statement, that the petitioner had caught on the blouse of the wife of the defacto complainant. It is well settled that a mere assault on a woman will not by itself come under Section 354 IPC. The petitioner's apprehension is that he will be remanded by the learned Magistrate when there is an allegation under Section 354 IPC. I do not think that the learned Magistrate will mechanically remand the petitioner to judicial

¶20

¶21

B.A No.3603 of 2016

¶22

custody. The learned Magistrate will examine the whole records and see the exact nature of allegations, and also what exactly are the offences attracted.

¶23

With the above observations this application is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Maniyamma Vs State of Kerala

Sukheendran.B Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh K.R Vs State of Kerala

Ashik Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Vs State of Kerala