Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceled

Expression of views, which are different and different from the government's opinion, cannot be called sedition,' SC bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul vows | Supreme Court Advocate Saravvanan R | Top Ranking Criminal Lawyers in Chennai India

Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceled

Bail under Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC)

Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceled. The Supreme Court on Friday canceled the Kerala High Court order where bail was given to an accused of killing a doctor while observing that the seriousness of the accusation was one of the relevant considerations when considering the bail application.

Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceledThe Supreme Court on Friday canceled the Kerala High Court order where bail was given to an accused of killing a doctor while observing that the seriousness of the accusation was one of the relevant considerations when considering the bail application. The bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the power to provide bail under Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) was discretionary, "the wisdom must be done judiciously"."There is no straight-jacket formula for grants or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail application," added the court.The session court has rejected the bail application to the accused while the High Court allows it to observe that indefinite incarceration is not needed. The government approached the upper court against the high court order.According to the prosecution case, on September 28, 2020, Mahesh, who was accused of stabbing a doctor, who was around 30 years old, in the stomach with a knife in a multispecialty dental clinic run by her, before her father.The prosecution said the victim and accused lived together from 2018 and so on. He then started the Multispeciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from his father. Mahesh misused money from the clinic and also harassed victims, both physically and mentally. Under circumstances, the victim was limited to separate from the accused and began to live in her own home.When the accused continued to threaten the victim, the victim, along with her father, filed a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur on September 26, 2020.The top court in the order recently stated, "In this case, the command of the High Court which was revealed as flawed, because the High Court recorded the seriousness of violations, observing that the incident was heinous, but continued to provide bail to respondents accusing on grounds That he has been detained since October 6, 2020, (ie around 75 days) without considering the material that is in accordance with the records made by the Prima Facie to believe that the responsibilities of the respondents have committed serious violations.At that stage, even the charge sheet has not been submitted. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of confidence, or the fact that the accused had absconded after the incident. " The bench also noted that the High Court did not consider or discuss the complicated reasons given by the court session in the order of rejecting bail pleas by the accused.

The bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the power to provide bail under Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) was discretionary, “the wisdom must be done judiciously”.

Seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations

“There is no straight-jacket formula for grants or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail application,” added the court.

The session court has rejected the bail application to the accused while the High Court allows it to observe that indefinite incarceration is not needed. The government approached the upper court against the high court order.

Accused of stabbing (Killing) a doctor

According to the prosecution case, on September 28, 2020, Mahesh, who was accused of stabbing (Killing) a doctor, who was around 30 years old, in the stomach with a knife in a multispecialty dental clinic run by her, before her father.

Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceledThe Supreme Court on Friday canceled the Kerala High Court order where bail was given to an accused of killing a doctor while observing that the seriousness of the accusation was one of the relevant considerations when considering the bail application. The bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the power to provide bail under Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) was discretionary, "the wisdom must be done judiciously"."There is no straight-jacket formula for grants or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail application," added the court.The session court has rejected the bail application to the accused while the High Court allows it to observe that indefinite incarceration is not needed. The government approached the upper court against the high court order.According to the prosecution case, on September 28, 2020, Mahesh, who was accused of stabbing a doctor, who was around 30 years old, in the stomach with a knife in a multispecialty dental clinic run by her, before her father.The prosecution said the victim and accused lived together from 2018 and so on. He then started the Multispeciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from his father. Mahesh misused money from the clinic and also harassed victims, both physically and mentally. Under circumstances, the victim was limited to separate from the accused and began to live in her own home.When the accused continued to threaten the victim, the victim, along with her father, filed a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur on September 26, 2020.The top court in the order recently stated, "In this case, the command of the High Court which was revealed as flawed, because the High Court recorded the seriousness of violations, observing that the incident was heinous, but continued to provide bail to respondents accusing on grounds That he has been detained since October 6, 2020, (ie around 75 days) without considering the material that is in accordance with the records made by the Prima Facie to believe that the responsibilities of the respondents have committed serious violations.At that stage, even the charge sheet has not been submitted. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of confidence, or the fact that the accused had absconded after the incident. " The bench also noted that the High Court did not consider or discuss the complicated reasons given by the court session in the order of rejecting bail pleas by the accused.

The prosecution said the victim and accused lived together from 2018 and so on. He then started the Multispeciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from his father. Mahesh misused money from the clinic and also harassed victims, both physically and mentally. Under circumstances, the victim was limited to separate from the accused and began to live in her own home.

Filed a complaint to the City Police Commissioner

When the accused continued to threaten the victim, the victim, along with her father, filed a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur on September 26, 2020.

The top court in the order recently stated, “In this case, the command of the High Court which was revealed as flawed, because the High Court recorded the seriousness of violations, observing that the incident was heinous, but continued to provide bail to respondents accusing on grounds That he has been detained since October 6, 2020, (ie around 75 days) without considering the material that is in accordance with the records made by the Prima Facie to believe that the responsibilities of the respondents have committed serious violations.

Severity of the punishment in the event of confidence

At that stage, even the charge sheet has not been submitted. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of confidence, or the fact that the accused had absconded after the incident (Killing). “

Bail given to Kerala Man accused of killing a female doctor was canceledThe Supreme Court on Friday canceled the Kerala High Court order where bail was given to an accused of killing a doctor while observing that the seriousness of the accusation was one of the relevant considerations when considering the bail application. The bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the power to provide bail under Section 439 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) was discretionary, "the wisdom must be done judiciously"."There is no straight-jacket formula for grants or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the accusation is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail application," added the court.The session court has rejected the bail application to the accused while the High Court allows it to observe that indefinite incarceration is not needed. The government approached the upper court against the high court order.According to the prosecution case, on September 28, 2020, Mahesh, who was accused of stabbing a doctor, who was around 30 years old, in the stomach with a knife in a multispecialty dental clinic run by her, before her father.The prosecution said the victim and accused lived together from 2018 and so on. He then started the Multispeciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from his father. Mahesh misused money from the clinic and also harassed victims, both physically and mentally. Under circumstances, the victim was limited to separate from the accused and began to live in her own home.When the accused continued to threaten the victim, the victim, along with her father, filed a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur on September 26, 2020.The top court in the order recently stated, "In this case, the command of the High Court which was revealed as flawed, because the High Court recorded the seriousness of violations, observing that the incident was heinous, but continued to provide bail to respondents accusing on grounds That he has been detained since October 6, 2020, (ie around 75 days) without considering the material that is in accordance with the records made by the Prima Facie to believe that the responsibilities of the respondents have committed serious violations.At that stage, even the charge sheet has not been submitted. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of confidence, or the fact that the accused had absconded after the incident. " The bench also noted that the High Court did not consider or discuss the complicated reasons given by the court session in the order of rejecting bail pleas by the accused.

The bench also noted that the High Court did not consider or discuss the complicated reasons given by the court session in the order of rejecting bail pleas by the accused.

Popular Questions:

Supreme court issues notice on the plea upon anti-religious law
Discrimination of transgender people: Notification of the Supreme Court to center
Manual Scavenger Deaths, Criminal process of Civic Bodies: Warned by Madras High Court