The Kerala High Court was asked to consider pre arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The High Court found custody necessary and dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The order was devoid of reasoning except for the dismissal.
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
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4741 of 2016 () -------------------------------
CRIME NO. 606/2016 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1-5:
1. ANEESH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, ANEESH BAHVAN, NEDUVANNOOR MURI, PIDAVUR VILLAGE, MUTTAHERY, KOLLAM.
2. SIVAN @ VINEETH AGED 18, S/O.OMANAKUTTAN, PLANGIZHIYIL HOUSE, NEDUVANNOOR CHAKKUPPARA COLONY, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, AVANEESWARAM MURI, KOLLAM.
3. AJU @ AJEESH S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 29, ANEESH BAHVAN, NEDUVANNOOR MURI, PIDAVUR VILLAGE, MUTTAHERY, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-676 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT LALIZA.T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.No.4741 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2016
ORDER
The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the
apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.606 of 2016 of the Kunnikkode Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294 (b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the crime.
B.A.No.4741 of 2016 2
IPC. The discharge summary in the name of the complainant shows that he had sustained very serious injuries in the alleged incident. He had sustained 20cm long wound on the dorsum of right arm, another one 6cm in length on the palmar aspect of right hand. Wound debridement, tendon repair and also ulnar nerve repair were done as part of effective treatment. Such injuries were inflicted by the petitioners and others in a calculated attack, with the full knowledge of consequence that such injuries may cause death .
B.A.No.4741 of 2016 3
more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses if they are now granted pre arrest bail. However, if the petitioners so opt, they can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can well be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be granted.
In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be granted in this fit case considering the seriousness of the offence and stage of investigation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Aneesh
State of Kerala
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
