Dismissed

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2022Bail Appl./10055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a second anticipatory bail application, holding that omission of facts in a first application does not justify a fresh one absent change of circumstances. Bail was denied, but the surrender order of the first application was modified.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; directions to surrender within ten days and produce before Magistrate repeated and modified to dispose bail application expeditiously on same day.

Afsal Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 28TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 10055 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.1593 OF 2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION,

KOLLAM

PETITIONER:

AFSAL

AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF, ASNA MANZIL, POORUVAHZI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.

¶10

BY ADVS. SHIRAZ ABDULLA K.ABDUL NASSAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SMT MAYA M.N- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.10055 of 2021

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶19

B.A.No. 10055 of 2021

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2022

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner/3^rd accused and co-accused are punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

The petitioner along with the 2^nd accused filed B.A.No.9094 of 2021 before this Court and that application

¶25

was dismissed as per order dated 21.12.2021 with the following directions:

¶26

The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on surrender, the Investigating Officer after necessary interrogation and formalities, shall produce them before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated in Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On such production of the petitioners, the bail applications, if filed, shall be disposed of as

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.10055 of 2021

¶29

expeditiously as possible, at any rate on the same day itself.

¶30

The petitioner now contends that due to a failure on his part, a few facts were omitted to be brought to the

¶31

notice of this Court while moving B.A.No.9094 of 2021 and if those facts were also placed, the anticipatory bail should have been granted.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that after considering the entire materials on record, this Court has passed the order dated 21.12.2021 and the contention now raised by the petitioner that the omitted facts would also to be considered and the application decided afresh is untenable.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the present application is not liable to be entertained in view of the bar contained in Section 362 of the Code.

¶34

Having gone through the averments in the application and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that by non-disclosure or otherwise, omission by this Court to consider a few facts while

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.10055 of 2021

¶37

passing a final order in an application for bail is not a ground for entertaining a second application. However, if there is change of circumstances, a second application is liable to be considered. I am of the view that the reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to hold that there is substantial change in the circumstances.

¶38

In the nature of the offence, major part of the evidence is documentary evidence. I am not forgetting the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the direction issued by this Court as per order dated 21.12.2021. Taking all matters into account, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted. However, a modification to the earlier order is required.

¶39

Therefore, I am disposing of this application with a modification to the order dated 21.12.2021. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigation officer within a period of ten days from today. The investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and if he

¶40

¶41

B.A.No.10055 of 2021

¶42

files an application for bail, the same shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day on taking into account the prevailing pandemic situation.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dkr

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsal 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

Salim Ali, Vs State of Kerala

Lawrence @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Salim Ali Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abimon Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon Thomas Vs State of Kerala