IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Bipin Sunny, S/o. Sunny – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 4416 Of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 325 and 308 - Second application - Anticipatory bail - Intention to commit culpable homicide - Accused wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and attempted to prod on his abdomen, with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Petitioner cannot file anticipatory bail plea before the Sessions Court and he has to file the same before the High Court itself. (Para 11).
Finding of the Court: Case at hand is a solitary incident, whereby, accused alleged to have assaulted de facto complainant, with intention to commit culpable homicide and he sustained consequential injuries, as stated in earlier bail order - Consistent finding of this Court in earlier bail order was that, since arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon, at instance of petitioner, are necessary, he is not liable to be released on anticipatory bail - Finding is based on materials in facts of given case and there is no change of circumstances otherwise available to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner and therefore, second application for anticipatory bail also must fail - After dismissal of anticipatory bail plea by High Court, that too, after suppressing adverse order from High Court, cannot be justified for any reason.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
ORDER :
This is the second application for anticipatory bail, filed by the sole accused in Crime No.27/2023 of Aloor Police Station.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I have perused the case diary, as such, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution case is that, on 07.01.2023, at about 11.00 a.m., when the de facto complainant reached Muriyad, the accused herein wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attempted to prod on his abdomen, with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since the de facto complainant evaded, the same caused abrasion on the abdomen. Thereafter, the accused again stabbed the de facto complainant and the same caused deep injury on his right wrist. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 325 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Earlier, the anticipatory bail plea, at the instance of the petitioner, was dismissed by a detailed order, as per Annexure 3 order in B.A.No.269/2023, dated 2.3.2023. The contention raised by the parties and the finding of this Court as per the earlier order is as under:
6. Whereas the learned counsel for the defacto complainant filed a detailed counter along with photographs showing overt acts at the instance of the petitioner. He also would submit that the defacto complainant in this case is a native of Tamil Nadu and he has no connection with the occurrence narrated in FIR No.21/2023 or FIR No.26/2023. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the petitioner was attacked by the accused/the petitioner herein without any rationale and thereby he sustained deep injuries, as could be borne out from the photographs also, apart from the medical documents. Accordingly, he zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also expressed the view of the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant pointing out the necessity of custodial interrogation to have recovery of weapon, while strongly opposing grant of anticipatory bail.
8. While addressing the rival contentions, I have perused the FIS and the FIR in this crime (Crime No.27/2023 of Aloor police station). In this crime, the specific allegation is that at 11 am on 07.01.2023, the accused herein r
Ganesh Raj v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
Second or subsequent bail applications can be filed when there are change in circumstances, so that petitioner could establish entitlement of bail/anticipatory bail in view of change in circumstances....
Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.
Second anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated; mere reliance on new documents is insufficient.
(1) Anticipatory bail petition – Once first anticipatory bail is denied without there being any change in fact situation, second application for same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entert....
Abuse of the process of the Court by filing subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications without justification.
Anticipatory bail applications can be granted under changed circumstances, providing protection against wrongful arrest while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
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.