High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 12 KL CK 0354

Omana vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 December 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amit Rawal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8077 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 351 words
1.

This is a third bail application which has been filed, on account of the fact that vide order dated 10.07.2020, this Court, while dealing with the second

bail application, had directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of two months expired on 11.09.2020. No doubt, under provisions of Section 311 of

Cr.P.C., PW1 has been recalled but now all prosecution witnesses have been examined. Rejection of the bail is only on account of the fact that the

presence of the petitioner, who is the mother of the victim, cannot be secured for the purpose of recording an evidence under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

He submits that petitioner can be enlarged on bail subject to imposition of heavy bail bonds with the surety of like amount.

3.

Per contra, Mrs.S.Ambika Devi, Special Public Prosecutor representing the State submits that the next date for recording the statement of

accused/petitioner along with the other co-accused in the trial court is scheduled for 23.12.2020 and thereafter the matter can be disposed of in terms

of the directions by this Court.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

5.

On going through the contents of the order whereby the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed, it is revealed that two situations had

subsequently surfaced.

I. PW1 was summoned under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and cross examination of PW4 and 14 was, in such circumstances delayed.

II. Now all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.

6.

I am of the view that at this stage no useful purpose is served in enlarging the petitioner on bail as the statement is to be recorded on 23.12.2020;

the date fixed by the trial court. Thereafter, in case the petitioner and other co-accused deem it appropriate to examine any witness in defence, that

can be done within a period of one month. For the reason, aforementioned, I do not intend to entertain the bail application by enlarging the petitioner on

regular bail.

Regular bail application is dismissed.