Dismissed

Saji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Aug 2016Bail Appl./4921/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the gravity of the allegations and the petitioner's alleged role as the master-mind.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail after due notice granted.

Saji 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4921 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 903/2015 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SAJI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. CHERIYA VEERAN, PARAMBILPEEDIKA HOUSE, SREEKRISHNA PURAM, ATTASSERI POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTUR POLICE STATION, CHITTUR-678 101, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J

B.A.4921 of 2016

Dated 25^th August, 2016

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in crime No.903 of 2015 of Chittur police station. The offences alleged are the offence under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 47B and 52 of the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act, 2010.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.12.2015 at about 5.30 p.m, the petitioner and the other accused committed theft of one Akil tree from the compound of the police quarters, Chittur police station, by cutting and removing the same from there.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶27

opposed the application and submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another

¶28

B.A.5582/16

¶29

¶30

offence of similar nature. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the master-mind of the offence alleged in this case. The recovery is to be effected. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the Court concerned and apply for regular bail if so advised. If the petitioner surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail after giving copy of the bail application in advance to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate shall

¶32

B.A.5582/16

¶33

¶34

consider and dispose of the application for bail on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR Judge

¶37

Mrcs/25.8.2016

¶38

/true copy/

¶39

P.S to judge

Saji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji 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

Abdulkareem Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar @ Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Thahira Vs State of Kerala

Binu S.Varghese @ Binu Chakalayil Vs State of Kerala