Dismissed

Joseph V.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2118/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a jeweller, was accused of receiving stolen gold ornaments under Section 411 IPC. The court declined bail as the petitioner was already an accused and recovery of stolen property was pending.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender and cooperate with investigation.

Joseph V.K Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2118 of 2010()

¶6

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

¶7

CRIME NO.OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

JOSEPH V.K.,S/O.KOCHAPPU, VADAKUMCHERIL HOUSE,PERUMBAYIKKAD VILLAGE, MALLUSSERY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.KOCHI-31.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

K. HEMA, J.

¶19

B.A. No. 2118 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2010

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The alleged offence is under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner allegedly received stolen gold ornaments, which were stolen by first accused.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is harassed by the police stating that he has received stolen articles. He is conducting a jewellery shop for the past 14 years and he never received any stolen articles, knowing to be stolen. As per the Government order marked as Annexure-A, he cannot be taken to the police station for questioning, since he does not admit receipt of stolen articles.

¶25

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the materials in the case diary it is clear that the stolen articles were received by the petitioner from first accused. Petitioner is to be arrested and interrogated. It is also submitted that the Government order referred above cannot

¶26

B.A. No. 2118 of 2010 2

¶27

override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

On hearing both sides, considering the fact that petitioner

¶29

is already arrayed as an accused and recoveries are to be effected through the petitioner and he is requested for interrogation, I do

¶30

not think that it is a fit to grant anticipatory bail. Though petitioner has asserted his innocence, there are no materials or circumstances to support such innocence.

¶31

Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating

¶32

officer and co-operate with the investigation.

¶33

Petition is dismissed.

¶34

K. HEMA, JUDGE

¶35

Joseph V.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph V.K v. the 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

Vinod Kumar Vs State

Prasad Kumar Vs the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another

R.J.Shankar and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Sreedharan M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Sarjunath Vs State of Kerala and Another

Prakash.K.P Vs State of Kerala