BAIL APPL No. 3412 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Jun 2009
- Bench
- K T SANKARAN
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 376(2)(g), 450
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused would show that a heinous crime was committed on the victim, who was aged only 16 years. I do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to get…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3412 of 2009() -----------------------------CRIME NO.214/09 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ CHEERAMANTE PURACKAL USMAN, S/O.KUNHIMARAKKAR,ALUNGAL,BEACH,VALLIKKUNNU, CHETTIPADY,PARAPPANANGADI (POLICE STATION). BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J.---------------------------------- B.A.No.3412 of 2009------------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.214 of 2009 of Parappanangadi Police Station.
The offences alleged against the petitioner and two others are under Sections 450 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
I have gone through the case diary.
The allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused would show that a heinous crime was committed on the victim, who was aged only 16 years. I do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to get any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGEcsl
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 376(2)(g), 450.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 29 Jun 2009. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.