BAIL APPL No. 3414 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 308, 323, 324, 435, 452
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the weapons used andother circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. I am of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3414 of 2009() ----------------------------------------CRIME NO.312/2009 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/IST AND 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------- 1. KINRAJ @ KANNAN, UTHIRAKKUZHI KIZHAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE.
AKHILRAJ @ RAJITH, SEELANTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J.---------------------------B.A. No.3414 of 2009------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009
O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1and 2 in Crime No.312/2009 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha.2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 323, 324, 308 and 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
I have gone through the case diary. The defactocomplainant has sustained two incise wounds as revealed by the wound certificate.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the weapons used andother circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGEscm
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 308, 323, 324, 435, 452.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 26 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.