Disposed

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2020Bail Appl./999/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court held it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail due to serious injuries sustained by the victim. The petitioner was directed to surrender for investigation within 10 days, after which bail could be considered on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to surrender before investigating officer within 10 days; bail application to be considered on merits after surrender if filed with notice.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.999 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1510/2019 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHIBU

¶9

AGED 40 YEARS S/O.JOY, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, ELUMULLUMPLACKAL.P.O, PAYANAMAL

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED SRI.P.A.AHAMMED

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAKKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572

¶14

BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A. NO.999 OF 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 11th day of August 2020

¶19

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) was heard through Video Conference.

¶20

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶21

No.1510 of 2019 of Kattakkada Police Station,

¶22

Thiruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 452,294(b),427,323,324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶23

3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.12.2019 at about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner, who is the brother of the de facto complainant, trespassed into

¶24

the textile shop of the de facto complainant situated near Poovachal junction in Perumkulam village and abused her and voluntorily caused hurt

¶25

to her by a knife. It is also alleged that, the petitioner committed mischief by destroying the

¶26

B.A. NO.999 OF 2020 3

¶27

glass table and camera monitor in the textile shop.

¶28

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

¶29

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has not committed the offence. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶30

6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the injured in this case sustained very serious injuries. The public prosecutor submitted that, the weapon used by the petitioner is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, the public prosecutor submitted that, orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may not be issued by this Court in this case.

¶31

7. After hearing both sides, according to me,

¶32

this is not a fit case, in which the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Of course, the petitioner can surrender befor the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Therefore, this bail application

¶33

B.A. NO.999 OF 2020 4

¶34

is disposed of with the following directions:

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today;

¶36

(ii) If the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer within 10 days from today, the investigating officer will interrogate the petitioner and thereafter produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court;

¶37

(iii) If the petitioner files a bail application before the Court concerned after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor concerned, the Court will consider the bail application on merits preferably on the date of filing of the same itself.

¶38

This bail application is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶41

pkk JUDGE

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu 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

Safeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Chandran, Vs the State of Kerala

Ratheesh P.R., Vs State of Kerala

Abhinand Aromal B.S Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shahul Hameed Vs State of Kerala