Dismissed

Ashok Bhaskar v. Sr.Supdt of Police, Kanpur

Kerala HC9 Dec 2014Bail Appl./7855/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners apprehending arrest in a Kanpur criminal case involving a disputed money transaction. The Court held that the petitioner's admitted failure to refund an obtained sum made them unfit for bail regardless of the existence of a crime.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed in its entirety.

Ashok Bhaskar Vs Sr.Supdt of Police, Kanpur — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7855 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. ASHOK BHASKAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN BHASKARAN NAIR, SNRA-26, SURYA NAGAR PADAMUGAL, PALACHODE ROAD, PALACHODE KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30.

¶9

2. SAJU GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. LATE VARGHESE, CHALAPPURATH HOUSE VELLACHALIL NAGAR, TKS ROAD, MARADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANPUR POLICE STATION, KANPUR-360 001.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKKARA, KOCHI-30.

¶14

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶20

========================

¶21

B.A. No.7855 of 2014

¶22

========================

¶23

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2014

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

¶26

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

According to the petitioners, they were

¶28

apprehending arrest in connection with some crime registered by the Kanpur Police. Even according to the petitioners, there was a transaction, in which ₹46,00,000/- is involved.

¶29

It seems that the petitioners had agreed to make available a photographic machine to the defacto complainant. On agreeing to supply the same, they had, by way of several installments, obtained an amount of ₹33,61,000/- from the defacto complainant. According to the petitioners, even though they have procured the

¶30

BA No.7855/2014

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

machine from China, the same was not given to the defacto complainant as the defacto complainant did not pay the balance amount and therefore, the petitioners had sold away the machine to some other person. Still the petitioners are not willing to deposit the amount admittedly obtained from the defacto complainant. In the circumstances whether there is any crime or not, this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶33

In the result, this bail application is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶35

DSV/09/12

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

P.A. To Judge

Ashok Bhaskar v. Sr.Supdt of Police, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bhaskar v. Sr.Supdt of Police, Kanpur

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

Subramani Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Faizal Vs State of Kerala

S.T.B.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

T.R. Binu @ Binumon Vs State of Kerala

Paul Kooran John Vs State of Kerala