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 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Ramakrishna Raj vs State on 11 August, 2008

Author: K.Hema

Bench: K.Hema

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5019 of 2008()


1. RAMAKRISHNA RAJ
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :11/08/2008

 O R D E R
                                  K. HEMA, J.

                    -----------------------------------------------
                     Bail Appl.No. 5019 of 2008
                    -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008.

                                      ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 448 read with Sections 3(1) of P.D.P.P. Act. According to prosecution, on 29.7.2008 at 3 a.m. the petitioner along with 20 other D.Y.F.I. workers wrongfully trespassed into the Panchayat sitting hall of Enmagaje Panchayat and caused damages to the chairs and glasses and thereby caused loss of Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he is falsely implicated in the crime, since he is the local secretary of the CPI(M) and the Chairman of the Education Samrakshana Samithi. The Panchayat is led by the UDF. Petitioner's Samithi is conducting classes relating to VIIth standard text book and the de facto complainant is motivated against the petitioner for this reason also. It is also submitted that the petitioner was standing as a by-stander to a patient in the hospital at the alleged time of occurrence.

[B.A.No.5019/08] 2

3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted submitted that the petitioner's name is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself and on the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant discretionary remedy under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that on the facts of this case, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petitioner's alleged innocence is not prima facie probabilsed also.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.