Dismissed

Pavan.S, v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC7 Mar 2019Bail Appl./907/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a second anticipatory bail application filed by the same accused persons. The Court held that since there was no change in the fact situation or law compared to an earlier rejected application, the request was dismissed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed; applicants directed to seek regular bail via court.

Pavan.S, Vs the Station House Officer — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 907 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 233/2018 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:

¶8

1 PAVAN.S, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN, VISHNU KRIPA, BENGARE, KANWATHEERTHA, KLUNJATHUR, KASARAGODE 671 323.

¶9

2 VINOTHAM @ SHETTY, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY, SR NIVAS, POOMANNU HOUSE, UDYAWAR P.O., MANJESHWAR, KASARAGODE-671 323.

¶10

3 KISHAN KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASHEKARA, PARTHIPAL HOUSE, KEERTHESHWAR, KUNJATHUR, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGODE 671 323.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE 671 323.

¶14

2 THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶16

SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 907 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The applicants herein had approached this Court earlier and had filed B.A.No.3709 of 2018. After extensively hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor, and taking note of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the application was dismissed by Annexure-II order.

¶23

Undeterred by the dismissal of the earlier application of pre-arrest bail as early as in the month of June, 2018, the applicants herein have approached this Court yet again seeking the very same relief. Various contentions are advanced.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav (AIR 2005 SC 921), has held that though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 907 of 2019

¶27

¶28

have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view be 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 application.

¶29

This Court in Vineeth v. State of Kerala [2005 (5) KHC 224], has held that though the accused has a right to make a second application for pre-arrest bail, he is bound to clearly spell out the change in fact situation, to canvass for such an order. Ordinarily, the matters, which have been canvassed in the earlier application, cannot be re-agitated on the very same grounds in the subsequent applications. It was held that filing successive bail applications without there being a change in fact situation would clearly amount to abuse of process.

¶30

Having scrutinized the materials and after considering the submissions advanced, I find that there are no change of circumstance. This is a case in which the applicants had blocked the public road and had attacked the police officers. I am not persuaded to take a different view. The applicants shall surrender before the

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 907 of 2019

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

This application will stand dismissed.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶39

DSV/7.3.19

Pavan.S, v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan.S, v. the Station House Officer

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

Sreejith.K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kumaravel.P., Vs State of Kerala

Dinesan.K, Vs the State of Kerala

Abu Vs the State of Kerala

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu Vs State of Kerala

Sulthan Sadath Vs State of Kerala