Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2015

Author: K. Ramakrishnan

Bench: K.Ramakrishnan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

        THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1936

                    Bail Appl..No. 7844 of 2015 ()
                    -------------------------------


  AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP 7900/2015 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
                       ALAPPUZHA DATED 30-11-2015

  AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP 7711/2015 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
                       ALAPPUZHA DATED 20-11-2015

       CRIME NO. 2276/2015 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
-----------------------

       AJAYAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
       S/O.RAGHAVAN, AJITH BHAVAN, PALLIPURAM P.O.
       CHERTHALA.

       BY ADVS.SRI.DINNY THOMAS
                        SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
                        SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN
                        SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------

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

      BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MADHU BEN

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION  ON
08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



                       K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
                  ..................................................
                          B.A.No.7844 of 2015
                .......................................................
              Dated this the 8th day of January, 2016.

                                  O R D E R

This is an application filed by the first accused in Crime No.2276/2015 of Cherthala police station under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the accused four in number wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and inflicted grevious injuries with dangerous weapon like granite stone and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under sections 341, 324 and 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Sri. Dinny Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Madhu Ben,learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in filing the complaint and there is no injury to attract section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused 2 to 4 were granted anticipatory bail by the court below and so he prayed for allowing the application.

5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor B.A.No.7844 of 2015 2 on the ground that the first accused is involved in several cases.

6. It is true that the case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant during July 2015, though the incident happened on 20.5.2015. I am not at this stage going into the question as to whether delay is fatal or not. It is true that accused 2 to 4 were granted anticipatory by the Sessions Court, Alapuzha as per order in Crl.M.P.No.7900/2015 dated 30.11.2015. It is seen from the report of the investigating officer that it was at the instance of the first accused that the incident occurred and it was he who caused the alleged grievous injury. I am not at this stage going into the question as to whether the injury is sufficient to attract the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or not as according to the allegation front inscier has been broken. However considering the fact that he is the accused in several cases, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner invoking the power under section 438 of the Indian Penal Code. If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer within ten days from today, the investigating officer, after interrogating him satisfies that his arrest is B.A.No.7844 of 2015 3 required, recording his arrest, produce him before the concerned Magistrate court as far as possible on the date of arrest itself without delay and on such production, if the petitioner moves for regular bail, then the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court, as far as possible, on the date of filing of the application itself, strictly in accordance with law.

With the above directions, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge B.A.No.7844 of 2015 4 B.A.No.7844 of 2015 5