Dismissed

Mukesh v. State

Kerala HC18 Jun 2018Bail Appl./3836/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ernakulam rejected a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, accused of an attempt to murder with injuries caused by a broken bottle, failed to make out a case for anticipatory bail due to the gravity of allegations and his antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicant directed to surrender and seek regular bail.

Mukesh Vs State — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 3836 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 253/2018 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶7

MUKESH S/O.MOHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, CHITTILAPPATTU PARAMBA P.O., KARUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 010.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANAS K.A.

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

SCL.

¶13

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶14

B.A. No.3836 of 2018

¶15

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2018

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.253 of 2018 of the Chevayur Police Station, registered inter alia under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶19

The victim in the instant case is a girl aged 19 years. The applicant herein is a neighbor. The applicant fell in love with the victim and when she refused his advances, he is alleged to have intercepted the bike on which the girl was travelling and attacked her with a broken bottle and caused injuries.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant asserted that applicant is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has been roped in without any cause.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary. It appears that there are convincing materials pointing to the involvement of the applicant.

¶22

B.A. No.3836 of 2018 -2-

¶23

Further, the wound certificate of the victim clearly corroborates the prosecution version.

¶24

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the severity of the injuries inflicted and the character and antecedents of the applicant, I am of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a case for Anticipatory Bail.

¶25

The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the applicant to surrender before the jurisdictional court and seek regular bail. The applicant is directed to

¶26

surrender before court without any delay and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.

¶27

This application will stand dismissed.

¶28

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶29

Scl/18.06.2018

Mukesh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State

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

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Kumar. D Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Joshi Vs State of Kerala

Purushan Vs State of Kerala