Dismissed

Sathyadas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2017Bail Appl./939/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application dismissed. The Court observed that medical evidence indicated the petitioner struck the victim on the head with a chopper after the victim gave assistance to the petitioner's mother for blaming the victim's action. The Court concluded the case was not fit for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner advised to surrender if so advised.

Sathyadas Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/17TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 939 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 176/2017 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SATHYADAS,

¶9

AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAYYAN, CHIRAKKANI KIZHAKKUMKARA HOUSE, CHADUPPURA, VENCODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 026.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

SKG

¶18

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶19

B.A.No.939 of 2017

¶20

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.176 of 2017 of Nedumangad Police Station registered for the offence under Section 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that at 8.30 in the morning on 24.1.2017 he struck the first informant on the back of the head with a chopper causing him serious injuries. Learned counsel submits that the allegation is false and the victim sustained injury in a fall.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Immediately after the incident the petitioner was taken to a hospital by an eye witness. The doctor was told that the victim sustained the injuries when the petitioner struck him on the head with a chopper. The doctor noticed a cut injury on the back of the occipital area. This makes probable the prosecution version that the petitioner assaulted the victim with a chopper. The reason for the assault is that the victim gave assistance to the petitioner's mother who was assaulted by the petitioner. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶27

B.A.No.939 of 2017 2

¶28

In the result this application is dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer. He may do so

¶29

if he is so advised.

¶30

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶31

cms

¶32

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Sathyadas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyadas 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

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinodkumar K E Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Yogidas Vs State of Kerala

V.I.Yamuna Vs State of Kerala

Vinu Vs the State of Kerala