Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9767/2012 of ABIN VARGHESE Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 9767 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.806/2012 OF THE KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9767 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO.806/2012 OF THE KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
----------------------------------
ABIN VARGHESE, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, MUNDANAMKUNNEL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- BA No.9767 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
The petitioner, who is arrayed as the fifth accusedin Crime No.806/12 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station for havingcommitted the offences punishable under S.326 r/w S.34 IPC,seeks pre-arrest bail. The prosecution allegation against thepetitioner and the other accused is that they, with the intentionof causing injuries to the defacto complainant, attacked himand caused injuries to him, using an iron rod. The petitionersubmits that he had no role to play in the incident and that theallegations against him are totally false.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication pointing out that the investigation is at an infantstage.
3. It is true that the name of the petitioner as such does not appear in the F.I.Statement. But, three persons, whocan be identified, are shown as accused on the basis of the F.I.Statement furnished by the defacto complainant. Consideringthe nature of allegations against the petitioner, the manner in BA No.9767/12
which the acts are alleged to have been committed by him, theweapon used by the petitioner and the other accused, theinjuries caused to the victim and the fact that the investigationis still going on, it is felt that this is not a fit case warrantingexercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court underS.438 of Cr.PC. The application is accordingly dismissed.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta