Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

“High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Attempted Homicide Case; Forum-Shopping Tactics Condemned”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered a crucial judgement on Friday, the 21st day of July 2023, denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused, Bipin Sunny, in a case pertaining to Crime No.27/2023 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The accused, aged 28 years, was charged with wrongful restraint and attempting to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The court heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, the counsel for the de facto complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution alleged that on January 7, 2023, the accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attempted to harm him, resulting in injuries. The prosecution invoked Sections 341, 325, and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused.

Interestingly, this was the second application for anticipatory bail filed by Bipin Sunny, after an earlier plea was dismissed by the High Court in a detailed order (Annexure 3). The petitioner’s counsel contended that there were changes in circumstances, and other accused in related cases had been granted anticipatory bail.

However, the court was not swayed by the petitioner’s arguments. Upon examining the case diary and considering the earlier order, the court found the petitioner’s complicity in the incident to be prima facie established. Consequently, the court opined that arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused were necessary to recover the weapon used in the alleged crime.

Furthermore, the court expressed deep concern over the petitioner’s actions in filing an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court after suppressing the dismissal of the earlier application by the High Court. In this regard, the court emphatically deprecated such forum-shopping tactics and suppression of facts, emphasizing that second or successive anticipatory bail applications, after dismissal by the High Court, must be filed before the High Court itself.

In its final verdict, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to all Sessions Judges in the state, stressing the importance of adhering to judicial decorum and discipline.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2023

BIPIN SUNNY  vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News