← Library
High Court of KeralaBail Appl./6241/2015dismissed

Hari v. State Of Kerala

2015-12-16Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 6241 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1056/2015 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. HARI ,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN, HAREESH BHAVANAM KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O., NIRANAM.

2. REJI, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, MOOKKASSERIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O. NIRANAM.

3. ANIL M.R. AGED 33 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPAN, MOOKKASSERIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O. NIRANAM.

BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031.

(CRIME NO.1056 OF 2015 OF PULIKKEZHU POLICE STATION)-689 631.

2. S.I. OF POLICE PULIKKEZHU POLICE STATION-691009.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORMS.T.Y.LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- B.A. No.6241 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2015

ORDER

Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in Pulikkezhu Police Station Crime No.1056 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 326, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

Heard both sides.

4.

Learned Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 are not made accused. They are only suspects. Only after questioning the first accused (first petitioner) the identity of other accused could be revealed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Prosecutor, I am of the view that the first petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Allegation against him is that he along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with wooden stick and caused fracture of four ribs. Recovery of the weapon has not been effected. Therefore, the first petitioner is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail. His application will stand dismissed. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, since they are not

BA No.6241/2015 made accused in the case, their apprehension that they will be arrested is baseless. Hence their application is also dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

cks