The court dismissed the petitioner's second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that no change in circumstances existed compared to the earlier rejected pre-arrest bail filed in connection with the same charges. The petition was thus liable to be dismissed.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.160 OF 2020
CRIME NO.361/2018 OF Chavara Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
SUJITH @ ANU AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, 3 CENT COLONY NO.35, KOLLAKA MURI, VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN- 690518.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.S.SEETHA SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-31.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690518.
SRI AJITH MURALI- PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.160 OF 2020
2
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
----------------------------------------
B.A No. 160 of 2020
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2020
O R D E R
This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the
petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Public Prosecutor.
Bail Appl..No.160 OF 2020
3
anticipatory bail as B.A No. 3581/2018 before this Court, along with the other accused in the case. As per the order dated 21.06.2018, this Court had allowed the application for pre-arrest bail made by the other accused in the case and rejected the prayer for granting prearrest bail to the petitioner. While rejecting the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, this Court had stated in its earlier order that considering the nature and gravity of the act allegedly committed by him, the benefit of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to him. In the present application for pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has not stated any change that occurred in the circumstances of the case or the fact situation of the case since the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by him. Therefore, this petition is only liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE
lsn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second anticipatory bail application filed by the same accused without stated changes in circumstances should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sujith @ Anu
State of Kerala
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
