The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by the 9th accused in a murder and rioting case. The court held that due to specific overt acts, the presence of an approver, and the nature of the accused as a hired goonda, bail could not be granted.
Bail application dismissed.
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 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 576 of 2016 ()
(CRIME NO.333/2005 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION) CRIME NO. 13/CR/2008 OF CBCID HHW-II, PALAKKAD
----------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9:
BENNY BERNARD, S/O.LATE BERNARD,AGED 39 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 1/293, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM NOW RESIDING AT THOTTSSERYNIKATHIL, VADUTHALA, ARUKKUTTY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :-
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REP. FOR DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D., HURT AND HOMICIDE WING II, PALAKKAD SUB UNIT, PALAKKAD.
BY SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADDL. D.G.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
B. A. No. 576 of 2016
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 9th accused in (Crime No.333 of Alathur Police Station) Crime 13/CR/08 of CBCID HHW-II for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B) and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
B. A. No. 576 of 2016
2
accused turned approver and his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which also supports the prosecution case. The trial in the case has not yet commenced. According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein is hired goonda and is involved in several other cases, though the details are not forthcoming. Relying on the decision reported in N. Kannappan V. State (Union Territory) and Andaman and Nicobar Islands [(2013) 2 SCC 177] , the learned counsel contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, that may hamper the recording of evidence, having regard to the nature of the case.
Considering these facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. According the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
/true copy/
P. A. to Judge
Pn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the 9th accused who remained elusive for 10 years and was hired as a goonda in heinous offences involving murder and rioting.
Whether the presentment of an approver's statement and the nature of allegations warrant rejection of the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Kannappan V. State (Union Territory) and Andaman and Nicobar IslandsRelied on¶23
N. Kannappan V. State (Union Territory) and Andaman and Nicobar Islands [(2013) 2 SCC 177] · Who else cites this
Benny Bernard
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
