Allowed

Chandra Bose v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC23 Oct 2008Bail Appl./5580/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail petition under Sections 457 and 380 IPC read with 34 IPC for theft from St. Mary's Church. The Court rejected the plea, noting the accused had been unavailable for over a year and were required for interrogation. The petitioners was directed to surrender within seven days to cooperate with the investigation. Ultimately, petition was allowed conditional on the direction

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to avail bail only upon surrendering before the investigating officer within seven days and cooperating with the investigation.

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5580 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.156/08 OF KODENCHERRY POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

CHANDRA BOSE, S/O.NANU, PALLIMURIYIL VEEDU, ATHIRAKUNNU.P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶10

KANAKAN, RESIDING -DO-

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ STATE

¶13

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODENCHERRY POLICE STATION.

¶15

STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.HEMA, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------

¶20

B.A.No.5580 of 2008

¶21

-----------------------------------------

¶22

Dated this the 23^rd October, 2008

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶25

The alleged offences are under Sections 457 and 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 2 and 3), in furtherance of common intention assembled together and stole rubber sheets from St.Mary's Church and those were sold to a shop. The jeep of second accused was also used for transportation of the stolen article.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the first accused is the petitioners' driver and he was dismissed from service. He has given false confession statement against the petitioners implicating them with the offence. They are innocent of the allegations made. Third accused is having mental illness as evidenced by Annexures-I to III and they have not committed any offence. It is also submitted that recovery of the stolen article is effected. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted.

¶27

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have a clear role in the theft. The stolen articles were recovered from a shop as per a statement given by first accused and the shopkeeper has given evidence that the petitioners

¶28

¶29

BA.5580/08

¶30

were also present at the time of sale of the article. It is also in evidence that the articles were brought in a jeep owned by the second petitioner. The petitioners are required for interrogation and identification by the witness, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the petitioners are involved in two other crimes also. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail.

¶31

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that on consideration of the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and identification. If anticipatory bail is granted, it is likely to adversely affect the investigation. The incident happened as early as on 12.6.2007 and the petitioners were not available for arrest for the past more than one year.

¶32

Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation.

¶33

With this direction, petition is allowed.

¶34

K.HEMA, JUDGE

¶35

vgs.

Chandra Bose v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bose v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Janaki & Another Vs the State of Kerala

Mahalingam Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shahul Hameed K.M. Vs the Station House Office

Sivadas Vs State of Kerala

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police