In a successive anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the plea due to lack of changed circumstances, holding that mitigating factors should be considered during regular bail hearing. The applicant was directed to surrender immediately.
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 ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.5351 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1558/2019 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
PRINCY JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, MAPPILASSERY HOUSE, VAKKADAPURAM P.O., KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678595.
BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.No.5351 OF 2020
2
O R D E R
Dated this the 6th day of October 2020
This is a successive application for anticipatory
bail filed by the applicant, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1558/2019 of Ernakulam South Police STation, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C.
applicant along with other co-accused, including the concern in which they were allegedly employed, namely, George International, a Proprietorship owned by the 6th
accused, in further of their common intention, had cheated the de facto complainant and several others promising to provide job visa at Sharjah and collected Rs.26,01,500/- from the de facto complainant and failed
to provide job and the entire amount was misappropriated. The applicant states that the
allegations are not true and she had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court as
B.A.No.2182/2020. Considering the gravity of the
offence and the economic repercussions, this Court was
Bail Appl.No.5351 OF 2020
3
pleased to dismiss the application directing the applicant to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and apply for regular bail. Instead of surrendering
before the Court and apply for regular bail, the applicant has come up with another application for anticipatory bail. It is true that the successive application for anticipatory bail is maintainable
provided that there are specific change of circumstances. In the instant case, there is no change of circumstances. The mitigating circumstances as
pointed out by the applicant regarding her being only an employee in the propertorship concern of the 6th accused can be considered at the time of considering
the application for regular bail by the jurisdictional court. With these observations, the bail application is dismissed. The applicant shall forthwith surrender before the investigating officer without any delay.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a successive bail application is maintainable in the absence of specific changes of circumstances.
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be dismissed and the applicant directed to surrender for regular bail.
PRINCY JOHN
STATE OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
