In a common order with another bail application, the court dismissed the application. The allegation of armed robbery was serious, the petitioner was in police custody, and there were concerns about criminal background and lack of fitness for bail.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 315 of 2016 ()
CRIME NO. 1343/2015 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
NIJAS, S/O.JALALUDEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, RUBEENA MANZIL, NEAR SASTHAVATTOM ANGANWADI, PILLAVEETTUMURI, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2016, ALONG WITH BA NO.1000 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
SUNIL THOMAS, J
B.A.NOS.315 OF 2016 & 1000 OF 2016
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2016
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively in BA.No.315/2016 & BA.No.1000/2016 in Crime No.1343/2015 of Mangalapuram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
B.A.NOS.315 OF 2016 & 1000 OF 2016 2
learned counsel for the petitioner in BA.No.1000 of 2016 was that the petitioner was only a on looker and was not involved in the crime, but might have been captured in the CCTV footage inadvertently. It appears that the first accused is involved in several other crimes of similar nature and Kappa was also raised against him. Having regard to the entire facts, including the fact that the petitioners were maintaining company with a person of a criminal background and further involved in a crime of very serious nature, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting bail at this moment.
The bail applications are dismissed.
sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with robbery under Section 395 IPC.
Nijas
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
