Kerala High Court
Sections 81(27) And 86(1) Of Prisons And ... vs By Adv.Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar on 10 July, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 4307 of 2018
CRIME NO. 798/2018 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NADEERA,
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. MUJEEB RAHMAN,
MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHALAKAODE, PUNALUR P.O,
VILAKKUVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
R BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AL/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.4307 of 2018
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2018
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the 2 nd accused in Crime No. 798 of 2018 of the Ettumanur Police Station, registered under Sections 81(27) and 86(1) of Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010.
3. The applicant is alleged to have discreetly handed over a smart phone to an accused, who was charged for murder, while he was produced before the learned Magistrate to enable him to make video calls to the 3rd accused in the same Crime. This was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who in turn, issued directions to register the Crime.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had gone to visit the 1 st accused who is her near relative. She was unaware about the consequences of B.A.4307/2018 2 her acts. The phone was taken for examination by the 1 st accused and he had made an attempt to make a video call.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the allegations are grave.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced.
7. Having gone through the materials on record, I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. I see no reason to exercise powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. I direct the applicant to surrender before the court having jurisdiction and move an application for regular bail. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits on the same day itself.
This application is dismissed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE AL/-10/7 xx