The Court dismissed a bail application by a petitioner who had previously withdrawn a similar petition after being directed to surrender. The Court held that non-compliance with prior directions and the nature of the offence barred the current application.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.4010 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 1639/2019 of HIGHCOURT
CRIME NO.672/2018 OF Kodungallur Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SABU AGED 34 YEARS S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, MUDAVANKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PULLUTT, KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT/S:
THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLORE POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.4010 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
It appears that the petitioner had
approached this Court on earlier occasion with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the same crime and this Court as
per Annexure-1 order dated 12.03.2019 in B.A.No.1639/2019 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn. This Court also directed the petitioner to surrender before the court concerned. Since the earlier application was dismissed as
withdrawn, I do not find any reason to entertain the present application,
particularly when the petitioner has
Bail Appl..No.4010 of 2019
-3-
approached this Court without complying the direction of this Court in that bail order. That apart, the offences alleged include the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “the said Act”) as well. Therefore, there is bar under Section 18 of the said Act in entertaining this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., particularly when there is allegation prima facie constituting the ingredients of the offence under the said Act.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be entertained when a prior similar application was withdrawn after the court directed surrender.
Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars an anticipatory bail application on the facts.
Whether compliance with prior court direction to surrender is a condition for filing a fresh petition in the same matter.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sabu
The State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
