INDIRA BANERJEE, KRISHNA MURARI
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Appeal filed by the State of Kerala is against an order dated 21st December 2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala granting bail to the Respondent, accused of a heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor aged about 30 years.
3. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 28th September 2020 at about 3.30 p.m., the Respondent Accused stabbed the victim, with a knife, inside a multispeciality dental clinic, run by the victim at Kuttanellur. The victim succumbed to her injuries at Jubilee Mission Hospital on 4th October, 2020.
4. As per the case of the Prosecution, the victim met the Respondent Accused after her divorce from her erstwhile husband. The victim and the Respondent Accused became close and started living together from 2018 onwards. The victim became pregnant, but the Respondent Accused forced her to undergo an abortion, by threatening her.
5. The deceased victim had, as per the case of the Prosecution, started the Multispeciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from her father. The Respondent Accused misappropriated money from the clinic and also harassed the victim, both physically and mentally. In the circumstances,
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118 – Referred (Para 18)
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Jagdish and Ors. v. Harendrajit Singh
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana
Jagdish and Ors. v. Harendrajit Singh
Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
While considering an application for bail, all the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvem....
The power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the evidence on record, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or inf....
The severity of the accusations, legal provisions, and judgments referenced influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
(1) Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail.(2) Bail cannot be granted without looking....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
(1) Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.(2) For cancelling bail once granted, Court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned bail orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and the factors to be considered while granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of reasoned bail orders, the considerations for granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, and the importance of judicial discretion and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.