This High Court dismissed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC by an accused charged with rape and cheating, finding that his failure to surrender as ordered was not a change in circumstances. The court rejected the excuse of non-communication from counsel.
The bail application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 496 of 2018
CRIME NO. 418/2017 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
R.BAIJU AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAMANAN, KAKKAPARAMBATHUVELI HOUSE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.K.Y.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SAJJU.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SHIRCY V., J.
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 418/2017 of Ernakulam Central Police Station arraigned for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 420 of IPC, has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2
BA 496/2018
him on bail on the same day on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to his satisfaction after interrogation, apart from the other conditions. But the petitioner did not comply with the said direction and again approached this court with another application numbered as Crl.M.A.No.6952/2017 in B.A.No.3060/2017. The said application was dismissed by this court.
3
BA 496/2018
again the petitioner has approached this court with this petition contending that there is change in the circumstances. It is pertinent to note that his pre-arrest bail application was considered by this court on 12.5.2017 with specific condition to surrender before the investigating officer on 16.5.2017. However, he has not complied with the order and it appears that he has not surrendered before the investigating officer and thus
failed to co-operate with the investigation. In short, noncompliance of the condition stipulated in the bail order, at any rate, cannot be considered as 'change in circumstances'. I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this application after eight months of disposal of the first application.
The Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/- SHIRCY V., JUDGE
ks
True copy
P.S. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-compliance by the accused with the condition to surrender before the investigating officer on 16.5.2017 constitutes a change in circumstances warranting an extension of time.
Whether lack of communication from counsel justifies the failure to comply with the bail order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.BAIJU
STATE OF KERALA
SIRCY V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
