Dismissed

Shirosh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC23 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of two anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons in a criminal case involving trespass, assault, and mischief. The High Court held that the nature of allegations and gravity of the offenses warranted refusal of bail and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed and the petitioners were directed to surrender before the Court having jurisdiction.

Shirosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1206 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 80/2018 OF MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶8

SHIROSH AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SEBASTIAN, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY SMT.K.S.JAYASUDHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018, ALONG WITH B.A.No.701/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

AL/-

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. Nos. 701 of 2018 & 1206 of 2018

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

These petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.80 of 2018 of the Mulavukadu Police Station registered under sections 143, 144, 148, 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶22

The allegation is that petitioners herein along with accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the house of the informant and after wrongfully restraining him and the other occupants assaulted them with weapons causing injuries. It is alleged that the accused caused mischief by causing extensive damages to a bike and a scooter which were parked in the porch.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are without basis. According to the learned counsel, the informant is a lorry driver and he was residing with other drivers in the house. They had caused inconvenience to the neighbors and this was questioned by

¶24

BA.Nos.701/2018 & 1206/2018

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

the petitioners. The allegation of physical assault and mischief is cooked up is the submission.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner in B.A No. 1206/2018 is the accused in Crime No.585 of 2017 of Mulavukad Police Station as well .

¶28

The case diary reveals that extensive damages were caused by the accused after trespassing into the house at about 9.30 p.m. and that they had assaulted the occupants. The mahazar prepared on the next day shows the extent of mischief committed by the accused.

¶29

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioners, the materials in support thereof and attendant facts, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers vested on this Court and grant an order of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that they be permitted to surrender and directions be issued to consider their application for bail. I find no reason to issue

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

BA.Nos.701/2018 & 1206/2018

¶33

any specific directions as prayed for particularly in a petition under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to surrender before the Court having jurisdiction expeditiously. There is no reason for the petitioners to apprehend that the application for bail filed by them will not be considered expeditiously and on its merits. These petitions will stand dismissed.

¶34

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶35

al/-xx

Shirosh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirosh v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

T.a.Koshore Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Kishore Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Naveen Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Usmankutty Vs State of Kerala

Simon Vs State of Kerala