Sandeep @ Chandu vs State of Kerala , Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 03, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1295381

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1295381
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jan 03, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/480/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandeep @ Chandu

Respondent

State of Kerala , Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Excerpt

.....n.r. this criminal revision petition having come up for hearing on 03.01.2024, the court on the same day passed the following: crl.r.p.no.480 of 2022 2orderthe bail earlier granted under section 439 cr.p.c was cancelled and recalled under subsection (5) of section 437 cr.p.c. on the ground that the accused had involved inthree other cases subsequent to the grant of bail. it is against that order, the accused came up in revision by relying on two decisions rendered by this court in godson v. state of kerala and densil v. state of kerala [2022 (4) klj 150] and abdul lathif v. state of kerala [2023 ker 8462]. subsequent commission of offence is a sufficient ground to invoke the power under subsection (5) of section 437 cr.p.c., but at the same time it shall not be exercised mechanically or in a routine way. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that what is passed by the trial magistrate under subsection (5) of section 437 does not reflect the proper application of mind in relation to the subsequent offences or its nature and assuch the order suffers drawbacks. the learned publicprosecutor to a certain extent conceded that the ordercrl.r.p.no.480 of 2022 3 passed by the sessions judge does not reflect the properapplication. hence, it is fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the revision petitioner to agitate the matter afresh before the sessions judge. without prejudiceto the said right, the present revision petition will stand dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/- crl.r.p.no.480 of 2022 4 appendix of crl.rev.pet 480/2022 petitioner's annexures annexure 1 a certified copy of the order dated 07.06.2022 in crl mp no. 634 of 2022 of the district and sessions court, kottayam annexure 2 a true copy of the order dated 26.08.2021 incrl mp no. 1237 of 2021 of the district and sessions court kottayam downloaded from www.ecourts.gov.in. // true.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 480 OF 2022 CRIME NO.169/2021 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022 IN CRMP 634/2022 IN CRL.M.P.No.1237/2021 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED No.1: SANDEEP @ CHANDU, AGED 32 YEARS, PAIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686541 BY ADV SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.480 of 2022 2

ORDER

The bail earlier granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C was cancelled and recalled under subsection (5) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused had involved in

three other cases subsequent to the grant of bail. It is against that order, the accused came up in revision by relying on two decisions rendered by this court in Godson v. State of Kerala and Densil v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLJ 150] and Abdul Lathif v. State of Kerala [2023 KER 8462]. Subsequent commission of offence is a sufficient ground to invoke the power under subsection (5) of Section 437 Cr.P.C., but at the same time it shall not be exercised mechanically or in a routine way. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that what is passed by the trial Magistrate under subsection (5) of Section 437 does not reflect the proper application of mind in relation to the subsequent offences or its nature and as

such the order suffers drawbacks. The learned Public

Prosecutor to a certain extent conceded that the order

Crl.R.P.No.480 of 2022 3 passed by the Sessions Judge does not reflect the proper

application.             Hence,   it   is       fit   and   proper   to   grant    an
opportunity         to     the    revision        petitioner    to   agitate      the
matter afresh before the Sessions Judge.                       Without prejudice

to the said right, the present revision petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/- Crl.R.P.No.480 of 2022 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 480/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022 IN CRL MP NO. 634 OF 2022 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2021 IN

CRL MP NO. 1237 OF 2021 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KOTTAYAM DOWNLOADED FROM WWW.ECOURTS.GOV.IN. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Sandeep @ Chandu vs State of Kerala , Represented by the Publ... Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan