The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner accused of cheating was denied anticipatory bail because investigation revealed his involvement, and granting bail would frustrate the inquiry.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed as granting bail would frustrate the investigation.
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.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 1077 of 2017
CRIME NO. 3374/2016 OF MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
----------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJO, AGED 35, S/O.VIJAYAN, KOODATHIL HOUSE, EAST MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
B.A.No. 1077 of 2017
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2017
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
from the first informant and he gave the vehicle to the second accused who in turn gave it to the petitioner. The petitioner handed it over to the
4th accused, who pledged it for a certain amount. The first accused failed to return the vehicle. The loss sustained by the victim is Rs.17 lakh. Learned counsel submits that the FI Statement does not disclose involvement of the petitioner in the transaction.
disclose involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. But the investigation revealed his involvement. It is not the first informant who is conducting the investigation. It is quite natural that he was not aware of
the involvement of the petitioner. That is no ground to say that the
B.A.No. 1077 of 2017 2
allegation against the petitioner is false. His role in the incident is disclosed in the confession statement of the second accused. The nature of the case is such that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner will frustrate the investigation. So I am not inclined to grant his prayer.
In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
pm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in offences under Sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC when investigation reveals his involvement despite his absence from the FI.
Whether granting anticipatory bail would frustrate the ongoing investigation.
Whether the non-disclosure of the petitioner in the First Information Statement is a valid ground to deny or grant anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bijo
State of Kerala
K. Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
