Santhosh v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/25TH KARTHIKA, 1937H Bail Appl..No. 6870 of 2015 ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 967/2015 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD --------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 4 AND 5:
-------------------------------------------------
1. SANTHOSH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ARUCHAMI, RAMANPALLAM, VENTHAPALAYAM, ATHICODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. JISHNU, AGED 18 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANAN, CHAMBAKULAMBU, ERATTAKULAM, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------ B.A No.6870 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2015.
O R D E R
Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2.
Petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.967 of 2015 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308, 427, 506(ii) r/w Section 149 I.P.C.
3.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a political dispute between some parties resulted in a clash and the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case. 5.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that the specific allegation made against the petitioners (accused Nos.4 and 5) is that they used iron rods to attack the defacto complainant in which he suffered fracture
B.A No.6870 of 2015 2 of tibia and multiple lacerations. Learned Sessions Judge also considered the matter and declined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. I find no reason to take a different view. Bail application is dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge amk