The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons charged with theft. The court held that prima facie case exists against the petitioners and that granting bail would facilitate escape of stolen articles.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 1213 of 2017 ()
------------------------------CRIME NO. 138/2015 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
---------------------------
1. BHUVANACHANDRAN,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, T.C.16/1061, K.R.BHAVAN, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. RENJITH,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN,T.C.16/1061, K.R.BHAVAN, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
B.A.No.1213 of 2017
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
5.The victim lodged a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, who forwarded it to the police. The case was registered on 14.2.2015. Accepting the allegation that the investigation was dishonest, this court ordered investigation by the CBCID. I have perused the case diary. There are materials in the case diary to believe that earlier the investigation was dishonest. In the course of the present investigation the investing officer recorded the statement of the Poojari of the temple where the second petitioner was working as a watcher. The Poojari has disclosed to the
B.A.No.1213 of 2017 2
investigating officer that certain home appliances were found in the godown of the devaswom and the second petitioner offered to sell them to him and others at a reduced price and even to give it free of cost. The statement of another person shows that he purchased tiles from the second petitioner. So it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the second petitioner. The facts of the case indicate that it was in furtherance of the common intention of both petitioners the offences were committed. The stolen articles have not been recovered so far. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, recovery of the articles will become impossible. So this application is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this application is dismissed.
Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be allowed given the prima facie case and non-recovery of stolen articles.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHUVANACHANDRAN
RENJITH
STATE OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
