Dismissed

Shijin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2017Bail Appl./2591/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused persons. The court found that materials and medical evidence supported the prosecution's allegations of assault and injury, rendering the claim of total innocence unpersuasive. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed without remand for deeper probe.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shijin Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/15TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2591 of 2017 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 368/2017 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE -------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 3:

¶7

1. SHIJIN, S/O. BALAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KULAMULLAHTIL HOUSE, AROOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 507.

¶8

2. VYSHAK, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 21 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, AYANCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 544.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI D.CHANDRASENAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶16

B.A. No.2591 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The petitioners have been arrayed as the accused Nos. 1 & 3 in Crime No.368 of 2017 of Vatakara Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324 & 308 read with section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.2.2017 at 11.20 p.m., the petitioners herein along with the 2^nd accused wrongfully restrained the victim and thereafter assaulted him with an iron rod causing injuries.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the crime was registered alleging that the petitioners had inflicted grievous injuries , materials reveal that allegations are grossly inflated and false.

¶24

The said contention is controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶25

BA 2591/2017

¶26

¶27

. Referring to the wound certificate of the victim it is pointed out that he had sustained injuries on his scalp and abrasions all over his body. It was also submitted that the 2^nd accused had earlier approached and by order dated on 5.5.2017 in B.A No.2534 of 2017, his application was dismissed.

¶28

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent cannot be countenanced. Prima facie, there appears to be materials against them. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. It is seen that the medical evidence also supports the allegations. In such circumstances, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶29

This application is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

vps

/True Copy/

PS to Judge

Shijin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shijin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumish K M Vs State of Kerala

Nishad.C.M Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Aslam Vs the Station House Officer

Mini Ajayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Badarudin Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Babu Vs State of Kerala