Krishnan v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 7155 of 2015 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 665/2015 OF POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ..........

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

---------------------------------------- KRISHNAN, S/O.CHAMI, AGED 42 YEARS, KANDUKANDATHIL HOUSE, BOOTHANAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

(CRIME NO.665/2015 OF POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, J.

== == == == == == == == == == == B.A.No. 7155 of 2015 == == == == == == == == == == == Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the application came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that here is a case where the petitioner is innocent of the allegations made against him. Petitioner is now arrayed as the 1st accused in Crime No. 665 of 2015 of Pothukallu Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 448, 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is also the submission made before court that no loss of eye sight caused to the petitioner, but an offence under Section 326 is incorporated in the crime. It is also the submission that the case posted for the report of the Prosecutor regarding the same.

2. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Prosecutor submitted before me that case dairy is

--2-- B.A.No.7155 of 2015 available where in there is the wound certificate of the victim. It indicates that there is a fracture sustained to the orbit area of the victim. The offence committed by house trespass.

4. After considering the nature of injury, the fracture sustained to the skull, I feel that this is not a fit case, where the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested upon this court can be invoked.

Thus, considering the totality including the nature of the offence, I feel that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE skr //True copy// PA to Judge