Sameer Mtp vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 14, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441863

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/1441863
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 14, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./253/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sameer Mtp

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....for regular bail.2. the petitioner is the accused in crime no. 258 of 2016 of mayyil police station, kannur district, alleging commission of offences under sections 448, 323, 326 & 307 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant and others and caused serious injuries to them.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner isabsolutely innocent in the matter. it is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was earlier granted bail by the committal court, which aspect was not properly taken into account while passing annexure a1 by the sessions court. it is submitted that the endorsement that the bail application before the learned magistrate is not pressed, was an endorsement made on account of the fact that there was a change of vakalath. it is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 20.12.2021 and his continued detention is not necessary in the matter.5. the learned public prosecutor points out the finding of the learned..3.. sessions judge in paragraph 4 of annexure a1 order. it is pointed out that the petitioner is a person, who had absconded earlier for nearly five years. it is submitted that the petitioner is likely to abscond again and that one of the considerations for grant of bail is whether the accused will be available to face trial.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 4 of annexure a1 order, i am of the opinion that it is very clear that if granted bail, the petitioner may abscond and may not be available to face trial. therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. in the result, the bail application fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.sd/- gopinath p. judge bka/14.02.2022

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 253 OF 2022 CRIME NO.258/2016 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SAMEER MTP, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAMEENA MANZIL, MANAKKAT THEKKE PEEDIKAYIL, PEKADAM, P.O. THRIKKARIPPUR, KANHANGAD TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671310 BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SRI.M.C.ASHY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 258 of 2016 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 448, 323, 326 & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant and others and caused serious injuries to them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was earlier granted bail by the committal court, which aspect was not properly taken into account while passing Annexure A1 by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that the endorsement that the bail application before the learned magistrate is not pressed, was an endorsement made on account of the fact that there was a change of vakalath. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 20.12.2021 and his continued detention is not necessary in the matter.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor points out the finding of the learned

..3.. Sessions Judge in paragraph 4 of Annexure A1 order. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a person, who had absconded earlier for nearly five years. It is submitted that the petitioner is likely to abscond again and that one of the considerations for grant of bail is whether the accused will be available to face trial.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 4 of Annexure A1 order, I am of the opinion that it is very clear that if granted bail, the petitioner may abscond and may not be available to face trial. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the bail application fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE bka/14.02.2022

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2022 Same Parties Sameer Mtp vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.