The Kerala High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail application filed by accused persons under Section 438 CrPC charges under Section 3, 427, 452, 506 and 34 IPC involving arson and mischief, holding the case not fit for bail given the midnight occurrence.
Anticipatory bail application rejected as the case is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.
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.
Bail Appl..No.74 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 30TH MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.74 OF 2020
CRIME NO.619/2019 OF Ponnani Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS 2 AND 3:
1 SREEJITH.K.P AGED 32 YEARS S/O.BABU.K.P, RESIDING AT KOLOTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYILAKKAD POST, EDAPPAL, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576
2 JITHESH.M AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SHIVADASAN, MANAKUTHU HOUSE, PULIKKAL .P.O, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637
BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031
SREEJA.V-P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.74 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
619 of 2019 of Ponnani Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452,427, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
and the first accused had set fire to a paddy field near the
residence of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant
informed the petitioners that he will report the matter to the
police. Infuriated by the same, these petitioners along with the
first accused have trespassed into the residential house of the
Bail Appl..No.74 OF 2020
3
defacto complainant on 26.12.2019 at about 00.30 hours and damaged the residential house and created a horrendous situation by putting the defacto complainant and his family members under threat. Thereby the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.
they are totally innocent. But they apprehend arrest by the
police and hence, this application.
alone has been arrested and he has been released on bail subsequently. Hence, this application is opposed.
Having considered the nature of accusations levelled against these petitioners and the other facts and
circumstances involved in this case, especially the fact that the
Bail Appl..No.74 OF 2020
4
incident has happened in the mid night, I do not think that this
is a fit case in which the discretion conferred on this Court can
be exercised in favour of these petitioners as prayed for.
Hence, his request for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Dismissed.
SHIRCY V
JUDGE
smm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether employ the discretionary powers under Section 438 CrPC to grant pre-arrest anticipatory bail to the petitioners accused of setting fire to a property.
Whether the timing of the incident (midnight) and the severity of accusations negate the suitability of granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners should be allowed or dismissed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SREEJITH.K.P
JITHESH.M
STATE OF KERALA
SREEJA.V
SHIRCY V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
