The Kerala High Court disposed of an application for anticipatory bail filed by Santosh Kumar, accused of theft. The Court rejected the plea, holding that the allegations were grave and the case required custodial interrogation, making the grant of bail contrary to the interests of justice.
Bail Application dismissed; anticipatory bail denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933
Bail Appl..No. 5896 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.275/2009 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. APPUKKUTTAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KETTISSERIKIZHAKKATHIL, PADA NOTH, KARUNAGAPPALLI.
BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O. OF POLICE, HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
Bail Appln.No.5896 of 2011
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.17 in Crime No.275 of 2009 of Haripad Police Station.
Accused Nos.1 to 6 committed theft of gold bars worth Rupees Sixty lakhs on 13/05/2009 from the Shop Assistant of Bhima Jewellery. The case against the petitioner is that he helped the other accused in the matter of disposal of the stolen gold.
Bail Appln.No.5896/2011
: 2 :
Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
skj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in an alleged theft case involving disposal of stolen gold.
Whether granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation requiring custodial interrogation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santhosh Kumar
The State of Kerala
K.T. Sankaran J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
