Dismissed

Akhil Krishnan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2019Bail Appl./2681/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Accused No. 5, rejecting the ground of increased investigation as insufficient to alter the earlier decision given the unchanged gravity of offenses like attempt to murder and Section 307 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for granting anticipatory bail is rejected and the petition is dismissed.

Akhil Krishnan Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2681 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 214/2018 OF Vallikunnam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

AKHIL KRISHNAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,MANGALATH, MANAPPALLI MURI,THAZHA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLI TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031.

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKKUNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-682031.

¶13

SMT.K.K.SHEEBA PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl.No. 2681 of 2019

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This second application for anticipatory bail is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

The petitioner is the fifth accused in the case registered as Crime No. 214/2018 of the Vallikunnam Police Station under Sections 143,147,148,307,323,324,341 and 506(ii) read with 149 I.P.C and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶20

The prosecution case is that on 12.2.2018, at about 20.00 hours, at the side of a public road, the accused together attacked the de facto complainant and his friend with deadly weapons and made attempt to murder them. It is alleged that the first accused stabbed on the abdomen of Jessil with a knife and that the second accused hit on the head of Jessil with an iron rod. It is also alleged that the third accused beat Shamil with an iron rod. The allegation against the fourth accused is that he wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and asked the fifth accused to kill the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the fifth accused beat on the head of the de facto complainant with wooden stick, causing injury on his head.

¶21

Bail Appl.No. 2681 of 2019

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The petitioner had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail as B.A No. 1957/2018, along with another accused in the case. As per the order dated 14.06.2018, the aforesaid application was dismissed as against the petitioner by rejecting the prayer made by him for granting anticipatory bail. This second application for anticipatory bail is filed by him on 08.04.2019.

¶25

An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail. But, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications (See Kalyan Chandra

¶26

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan:AIR 2004 SC 1866 ).

¶27

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav:AIR

¶28

2005 SC 921 , the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶29

“Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the

¶30

Bail Appl.No. 2681 of 2019

¶31

¶32

fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent applicaton”. (emphasis supplied)

¶33

The aforesaid principles have been highlighted by this Court in Vineeth v. State of Kerala: 2015(5) KHC 224 and Pandi v. State of Kerala: 2018(4) KHC 782:2018(4)KLT 249.

¶34

In the instant case, there is no change in the fact situation. There is only a vague averment in the application that the investigation has proceeded a lot since the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail. While dismissing the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, this Court had taken note of the nature and gravity of the act allegedly committed by the petitioner and nature of the offence alleged against him (Section 307 I.P.C). There is no change in the circumstances of the case with regard to the aforesaid aspects. In the absence of any change in the fact situation or the circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Bail Appl.No. 2681 of 2019

¶36

¶37

Consequently, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail

¶38

to the petitioner is rejected and the petition is dismissed.

¶39

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶40

JUDGE

¶41