Dismissed

Anshif v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020Bail Appl./5688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the 6th accused in a case involving mischief and unlawful assembly, dismissing it as an abuse of process due to lack of change in circumstances following a prior rejection. The court directed the petitioner to surrender forthwith to seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender forthwith and seek regular bail; Application dismissed.

Anshif Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

B.A.No.5688 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.5688 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.387/2020 OF Pavaratty Police Station , Thrissur

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

ANSHIF AGED 18 YEARS NALAKATH HOUSE POOVATHOOR THRISSUR . 680555

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

SRI BIMAL K NATH SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.5688 OF 2020

ORDER

Dated this the 5th day of October 2020

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner herein is the 6th accused in Crime No.387 of 2020 of the Pavaratty Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 457 and 429 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal code.

¶23

On 7.5.2020 at about 2.30 am, owing to previous enmity towards the son of the de facto complainant, the petitioner along with the rest of the accused are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the home of the de facto complainant by breaking open the door and committed mischief by destroying the television, doors, windows etc. By their acts, loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was allegedly caused. They are also alleged to have inflicted cut injuries on their pet dog resulting in its death.

¶24

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

¶25

It appears that the petitioner along with the other accused had earlier approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail and by order dated 3.6.2020, this Court had rejected the request taking note of the antecedents of the accused and the nature of allegations. The petitioner has not been able to show any change of circumstances even now to take a different view.

¶26

B.A.No.5688 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

The Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav (AIR 2005

¶29

SC 921) has held that though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

I am of the considered opinion that the repeated filing of the application in a case of this nature is clearly an abuse of process. He has managed to keep himself away from the arms of law. The petitioner shall surrender forthwith and seek regular bail.

¶32

This application will stand dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Anshif v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshif 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod, Vs the Village Officer

Radhakrishnakurup Vs the State Police Chief

Krishna Babu. J Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Pathummakkutty Vs the Special Thahsildar

V.Ambika Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Managing Director Vs Bobby C.Alex