Dismissed

Aneesh @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that as no substantial change in facts or circumstances existed following the dismissal of the earlier application, the conditions for invoking jurisdiction were not satisfied, directing the applicant to seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the applicant was directed to surrender and seek regular bail.

Aneesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5525 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 441/2018 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANEESH @ KUTTAN, S/O. GEETHA, KARUVILA VEEDU, KOTTIYAKONAM, PARIPALLI, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. N. PRABHAKARAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.441 of

¶17

2018 registered at the Paripalli Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.

¶18

BA:5525/18

¶19

¶20

The applicant along with the 1^st accused had approached this Court on a previous occasion seeking anticipatory bail. Having considered the severity of the injuries inflicted by the applicant and the nature of the accusations, it was held that he was not entitled to an order as prayed for. His application was dismissed by order dated 12.06.2018.

¶21

4. Undeterred by the dismissal of the earlier application, the

¶22

applicant has yet again approached this Court and sought for the very same relief.

¶23

It is by now settled that a person will be entitled to move the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, for the second time. He can do so only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. However, he will not be entitled to move the second application on the ground that the Court on earlier occasion failed to consider any particular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to him was not agitated before the Court. This Court in Vineet v. State of Kerala [2015 (5) KHC 224] had deprecated the practice of filing repeated bail applications without any substantial change of circumstances. I find no reason to take a

¶24

BA:5525/18

¶25

¶26

different view now, the conditions of invocation of jurisdiction not being satisfied.

¶27

I direct the applicant to surrender before the

¶28

Investigating Officer or the court having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. If an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.

¶29

This application will stand dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶32

ps/5/10/18

Aneesh @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh @ Kuttan 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

Kuzhinjalil Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ashif a Vs State of Kerala

Syamraj K. Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Keezhvaipur Police Station

Muhammed P.V Vs State of Kerala

Ashifa.C Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith @ Karumady Vs State of Kerala