Dismissed

Sahil., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020Bail Appl./324/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by a second accused in a murder case. Relying on the diabolic nature of the offence and the petitioner's criminal history in other cases, the court held that no mercy was warranted and affirmed the Sessions Court's rejection.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty granted to apply for visiting father with future prior intimation.

Sahil., Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.324 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 6830/2019 DATED 10-12-2019 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 5871/2019 DATED 04-10-2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM

¶8

CRIME NO.2263/2019 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶10

SAHIL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SAMAD, MENANTHARAYIL, ERUVA MURI P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 572.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SMT.T.RASINI

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY SENIOR PP SRI SAJJIN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.324 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 11th day of February 2020

¶20

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime

¶21

No.2263/2019 of Kayamkulam Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302,324,326 and 212 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., along with two other accused. The Final Report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, which is taken on file as C.P. No. 65/2019. The petitioner had applied for bail before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha vide Order at Annexure A3, dated 10-12-2019. His bail application was dismissed.

¶22

Going through the facts in this case, would indicate the diabolic nature of offence the accused was involved in. The defacto complainant along with his friend had gone to Kayamkulam Highway Palace Bar for consuming liquor. A dispute arose between them and accused no. 1 to 3 . The 1st accused who was driving a car bearing no.KL-26/C-3284, along with the petitioner and the 3^rd accused inside the car, hit

¶23

¶24

Bail Appl..No.324 OF 2020

¶25

Shamsheeer Khan down and ran over his head resulting in his instantaneous death. Petitioner was allegedly sitting on the front seat of the car. He had also attacked Shamseer Khan before he was run over by the car driven by the 1^st accused.

¶26

The inhuman manner in which the petitioner and the co-accused had done away with the young man who had 56 anti mortal injuries on his body indicates how cruel they could be and it is interesting that they did not have any previous enmity with him and it was only the result of an instantaneous clash they had with the deceased in the front of the bar. The petitioner therefore needs no mercy at this stage. The committal proceedings is awaited and the trial is yet to begin.

¶27

That apart, it was also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the petitioner has two other cases registered against him, as Crime No.2367/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 323,341 and 354 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and also Crime No. 97/2019 of Palakkad Town Police station , under Sections 179 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶28

The involvement of the petitioner in other crimes further indicates the criminal nature of the petitioner. The bail

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.324 OF 2020

¶31

application was therefore rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. I find no reason to find otherwise. In the result, the bail application is rejected.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the petitioner that, the petitioner's father is very much ill . Petitioner is at liberty to apply for visiting his father with escort. Application if any filed shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, where the case is pending.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SSK

Sahil., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antony Vs State of Kerala

Antony, Vs State of Kerala

N.Peethambara Kurup Vs Shajan

Vishnu J.K Vs State of Kerala

Jyothish Vs Raman

Syamala Vs State of Kerala