Dismissed

Gopakumar v. Sub Inspector of Police, Veeyapuram

Kerala HC18 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2084/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, in a bail application for seeking anticipatory bail, found that the petitioner was not a fit case due to the serious nature of theft allegations and insufficient evidence to prove false implication. The petitioner was ordered to surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to surrender before Investigating Officer at the earliest and co-operate with investigation.

Gopakumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Veeyapuram — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2084 of 2010() ----------------------------(CRIME NO.43/2009 OF VEEYAPURAMPS) PETITIONER -----------------------------G.GOPAKUMAR, PANACHAPARAMBIL, VELLAMKULANGARA, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶2

RESPONDENT(S): --------------SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEEYAPURAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶3

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶4

K.HEMA, J

¶5

B.A No.2084 OF 2010

¶6

Dated this the 18^th day of June 2010

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The alleged offences are under Sections 380, 457 r/w 34

¶10

IPC. According to prosecution, accused numbers one and two were arrested when they were found in possession of certain idols and on questioning, it was revealed that third accused gave the articles to first and second accused. Third accused was thereafter arrested and it was revealed that the idols and other articles were stolen by accused numbers four to nine from a temple. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 entrusted the articles to third accused.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He is not involved in any other case. Third accused had some enmity towards petitioner and hence his name was stated by him to police when he was arrested.

¶12

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that third accused had not made any such confession relating to petitioner who is the seventh accused. In fact, it was fourth and fifth accused who made a confession that petitioner committed the theft along with them and others.

¶13

B.A No.2084 OF 2010

¶14

¶15

On hearing both sides, I am not satisfied of the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner that he was falsely implicated by third accused out of enmity etc. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner will be required for interrogation.

¶16

Petitioner shall surrender before Investigating Officer at the earliest and co-operate with investigation.

¶17

Petition is dismissed.

¶18

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶19

vdv

Gopakumar v. Sub Inspector of Police, Veeyapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopakumar v. Sub Inspector of Police, Veeyapuram

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

Firos Khan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sadhukuttan Vs State of Kerala

E.O.Lawrence Vs State of Kerala

Rajan and Another Vs State of Kerala

T.G.Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vineeshkumar & Another Vs State of Kerala