Dismissed

Ashraf.C.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2018Bail Appl./31/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application regarding a motor vehicle accident causing death. The bench held that rash driving causing death deemed done with knowledge of likely consequences is culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, not a bailable Section 304A, and denied bail due to investigation stage and witness tampering risk.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not entitled to release on bail at this stage.

Ashraf.C.K Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 31 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO.2368/2017 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶6

PETITIONER(IN CUSTODY):

¶7

ASHRAF.C.K, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. MAMMUKUTTY, CHENGHOTTEKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KAYALAM P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.N.PRASANNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (ON BEHALF OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE)

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶15

B.A. No.31 of 2018

¶16

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.2368 of 2017 of the City Traffic Police Station, Kozhikode, registered alleging offences punishable under sections 304 and 308 of the IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein while driving a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL 11 Z 9494, drove his powerful vehicle in a reckless manner along a busy public road with full knowledge that his act is likely to cause death and while doing so dashed on the back side of a scooter. He drove the vehicle forward over the body of the pillion rider and then hit a cycle and a motor bike. The Bike was dragged on for quite a distance. The rider and pillion rider of the Scooter, who were spouses, and the rider of the

¶21

BA 31/2018

¶22

¶23

Motor Bike, suffered fatal injuries. They were immediately removed to the Medical College Hospital. The husband and wife were pronounced dead on arrival and the person on the bike succumbed to the injuries sustained by him later in the day.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that instant is a case of pure rashness and negligence and what would be attracted on facts is only an offence under section 304A of the IPC. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2017 and having regard to the period of detention undergone, he may be released on bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said prayer. It is submitted that the rash and negligent act was preceded with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. It is submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages and prays for dismissal of the application.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.

¶27

I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel

¶28

BA 31/2018

¶29

¶30

that what is attracted in the instant case is only Section 304 A of the IPC which is bailable. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under S.304 Part II IPC. (See Alister Antony Pereira V State of Maharashtra [2012(2) SCC 648] )

¶31

Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as held in Alister ( supra). A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. Those cases which fall within last clause of S.299 but not within clause

¶32

BA 31/2018

¶33

¶34

'fourthly' of S.300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under S.304 Part II IPC.

¶35

The case diary shows that the investigation is in the early stages. Three persons have lost their life due to the acts of the petitioner. The likelyhood of the witnesses being influenced and the evidence being tampered with cannot be ruled out .

¶36

Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation and the prejudice that would befall on the prosecution if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

¶37

This petition will stand dismissed.

¶38

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

vps 23/1xx /True Copy/

¶40

PS to Judge

Ashraf.C.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf.C.K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kochan Latheef Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Anand Vs State of Kerala

Babu.C. Vs the State of Kerala