Dismissed

Ramesh @ Pappu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2008Bail Appl./1193/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application under Sections 457 and 380 IPC against an accused of theft. The court held that since the trial had commenced and the Magistrate reported it could conclude by mid-April 2008, there was merit in denying bail to prevent interference with the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner continues in custody unless Magistrate fails to dispose case by 20.4.2008.

Ramesh @ Pappu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1193 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO. 833/07 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

RAMESH @ PAPPU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VALLON, RESIDING AT CHERTHANAMODIVU HOUSE THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

¶18

Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns from the house of the defacto complainant. He was arrested on 19.12.2007 and he continues in custody from that date.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may now be enlarged on bail.

¶22

The learned Prosecutor, after taking instructions, opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner is involved in another crime also. In these circumstances it is prayed that regular bail may not be granted to the petitioner now.

¶23

Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The report shows that the trial had already commenced. PW1 had

¶24

B.A.No. 1193 of 2008

¶25

¶26

already been examined. The learned Magistrate submits that the case shall be disposed of by 15.4.2008.

¶27

The trial having commenced and the learned Magistrate having undertaken that the trial can be completed by 15.4.2008, I am of the opinion that there is merit in the opposition by the Prosecutor. I

¶28

am satisfied that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶29

This application is accordingly dismissed accepting the submission of the learned Magistrate that the case shall be disposed of by 15.4.2008. Compliance shall be reported by the learned Magistrate.

¶30

If the case is not disposed of by 20.4.2008, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court again for bail.

¶31

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶32

Ramesh @ Pappu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Pappu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aji Philip and Others Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Vasudevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Joby and Others Vs State of Kerala

Manoj and 2 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Das Vs State of Kerala

Lissy Rajan and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another