Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for explosives offence. Court held repeated applications without surrender constituted abuse of process. Applicant refused by permission to withdraw; bail dismissed though no cost imposed.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 447 of 2016
CRIME NO. 483/2013 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
MUSTHAFA T., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN, THYKKADAN HOUSE, CHIRAKKALPADY, P.O.THRIKKALOOR, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.BREEZ
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (CRIME NO. 483 OF 2013 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)-678 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
SUNIL THOMAS, J
B.A.NO.447 OF 2016
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.483/2013 of Alathur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 2(b) and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.
another application for pre-arrest bail, as BA No.6345/2013 which was dismissed by order dated 04.10.2013. This is the third application in succession filed
B.A.NO.447 OF 2016 2
by the petitioner herein. In the light of the detailed order passed in Annexure-A1 bail application, which was again in the second application, the present application sought is nothing but an abuse of process of court. This is a fit case wherein cost is liable to be imposed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture sought permission for withdrawal of the application, which I am not inclined to grant, for the reasons mentioned above. However, I refrain from imposing any cost at present.
The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application constitutes an abuse of process of court and requests permission for withdrawal.
Musthafa T.
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
