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 of Kerala Suspends Sentence for One, Denies for Another found to be involved in 30 Crimes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honourable Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, has rendered a divided verdict in the case of two individuals convicted of serious offences, including attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC. The court has granted suspension of sentence to the first petitioner, Ratheesh, while denying the same to the second petitioner, Eldho @ Achi Eldho, citing their extensive criminal backgrounds and involvement in multiple crimes.

Justice Ajithkumar, in his judgment, highlighted the complexity of the case. "The question is whether there is any special circumstance to deny them bail," the judge observed, referring to the extensive criminal history of both petitioners. The first petitioner, Ratheesh, was found to be involved in 30 crimes, yet had not been convicted in any of these. Conversely, Eldho, the second petitioner, had a conviction under Section 307 of IPC and was involved in a case under Section 302 of IPC.

The decision comes in the wake of a detailed examination of the petitioners' involvement in numerous crimes, with the court meticulously listing their criminal history. The ruling underscored the principle that suspension of sentence should be considered liberally unless exceptional circumstances exist, as per the Apex Court's guidelines in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others v. State of Gujarat.

Justice Ajithkumar's judgment also referenced Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary [AIR 2023 SC 2202], emphasizing the appellate court's duty to objectively assess materials on record when deciding on suspension of execution of sentence.

The court granted suspension of sentence to Ratheesh under strict conditions, including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and adherence to specific conduct requirements. Meanwhile, the petition for suspension of sentence for Eldho was dismissed due to his more severe criminal record and past convictions.

Date - 8th day of December 2023

RATHEESH  VS THE STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News