Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, J
AJITH @ UNNIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER – Respondent
Bail Appl./3595/2009
Bail - Application for Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 439 - Summary of the court's decision emphasizes the stringent legal scrutiny involved in bail applications, particularly given the petitioners' criminal antecedents and the serious nature of the alleged offenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused in multiple criminal cases involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code. They applied for bail after their arrest, citing the lengthy duration of custody and the nature of the offenses as grounds for their release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had significant criminal antecedents, and there was a strong likelihood of re-offending if granted bail. The risk to public safety and potential tampering with evidence were key considerations.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure given their prior criminal history and the serious nature of current allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the offenses and the petitioners' criminal backgrounds justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the importance of ensuring public safety.
Final Decision: The Bail Application is dismissed.
ORDER
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.369 of 2009 of Kodungallur Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The incident was on 17.4.2009. The petitioners were arrested on 20.4.2009 and they are in judicial custody. The petitioners moved a Bail Application before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed by the order dated 18th June 2009. Paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the said order reads as follows:
“The following criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. A1 is an accused in 1) Crime No.110/2007 of the Kodungallur Police Station for the offences under Sections 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 2) Crime No.1131/2007 of the said police station under Section 153(A) IPC, 3) Crime No.914/2007 of the said police station under Section 295 IPC, 4) Crime No.157/2008 of the said police station under Section 107 Crl.P.C., 5) Crime No.198/2008 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 6) Crime No.257/2008 of the BA No.3595/2009 2 said police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353 and 308 IPC, 7) Crime No.288/2008 of the said police station under Sections 324 and 308 IPC and 8) crime No.291/2009 of the said police station under Section 110(e) Crl.P.C.
5. The 2nd accused is an accused in 1) crime No.825/2007 of the Kodungallur police station for the offences under Section 324 IPC, 2) Cime No.924/2007 for the offence under Section 107 Crl.P.C., 3) Crime No.1107/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 4) Crime No.198/2008 under Sections 341, 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 5) Crime No.110/07 of the said police station under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC, 6) Crime No.257/2008 of the said police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353 and 308 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and 7) Crime No.564/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC.
6. The 3rd accused is an accused in Crime No.560/2002, 561/2002, 563/2002, 564/2002 and 565/2002 of the Mathilakam police station for the offences of unlawful assembly rioting armed with deadly weapons etc., 6) Crime No.693/2002 of the Kodungallur police station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 7) Crime No.108/2003 of the said police station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353 and 225 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 8) Crime No.524/2005 of the said police station under Section 279 IPC, 9) Crime No.727/2005 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 10) Crime No.78/2006 of the said police station under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC 11) Crime No.145/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 12) Crime No.281/2007 of the said police station under Sections 448 and 427 IPC, 13) Crime No.856/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 324 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 14) Crime No.1033/2007 under Sections 143, 147 427 and 353 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.”
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners BA No.3595/2009 3 are involved in the several cases mentioned in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and if they are released on bail, it is most likely that the petitioners may indulge in similar activities in the area resulting in danger to the peaceful life of the people of the locality. It is also likely that they may try to tamper with the evidence and influence or intimidate the witnesses.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injury sustained and the fact that all the petitioners are invo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
