The court dismissed a bail application filed by an accused charged with rape and related offences. Applying settled principle that long custody is not a ground for bail in grave cases, the court rejected the plea citing prior order and gravity of allegations.
Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC dismissed; no relief granted.
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 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 1744 of 2019
CRIME NO. 351/2018 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAJEEVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, THAMARAKUZHIYIL, ARAMANGANAM, UDUMA, KASARGOD.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAKEL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:1744/19
2
ORDER
This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the accused in S.C. No.768 of 2018 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kasargod. In the aforesaid case, he is being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Sections 452, 506(i), 354(D), 324 and 308 of the IPC, Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
BA:1744/19
3
victim and when her family members intervened, they were inflicted serious injuries.
BA:1744/19
4
and gravity of the allegations, the role assigned to him and the materials in support thereof, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution appears to be genuine. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that his long period of incarceration is a sufficient enough reason to grant him bail. It is by now settled that being under custody for an extended period is not a ground for release on bail, particularly in cases which involve grave offences. (See Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [(2012) 9 SCC 446].
This application will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an under-trial prisoner already in long term custody in a case involving serious sexual offences and attempts to kill.
Whether long period of incarceration is a sufficient ground for release on bail in cases involving grave offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its DirectorReferred¶27
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] · Who else cites this
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and anotherReferred¶27
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [(2012) 9 SCC 446] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SAJEEVAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
