Dismissed

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2018Bail Appl./409/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The High Court held that the offences are grave, the petitioner played an active role in abduction and robbery, and custodial interrogation is essential for investigation. Consequently, bail was denied and the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petition dismissed.

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 409 of 2018

¶6

(CRIME NO. 327/2016 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM)

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

¶8

SAMEESH BHASI @ SAMI, S/O BHASI, DOWSON VIHAR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,, CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY SRI.K.B. UDAYA BHANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018,

¶14

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶17

Bail Application No.409 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The petitioner is the fourth accused in the case registered as Crime No.327 of 2016 of the Chengamanadu Police Station under Sections 363, 364 A and 395 I.P.C. read with 120 B I.P.C. The prosecution case is as follows: Accused Nos.1 to 11 hatched a conspiracy to commit robbery. Pursuant to such conspiracy, the first accused summoned the de facto complainant to a hotel at Athani at 11.30 hours on 22.03.2016. He took the de facto complainant to one of the rooms in the hotel. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present in that room. They confined the de facto complainant in the room and told him that they will not release him unless he paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thereafter, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 took the de facto complainant to a rubber estate at the place Puthiyakara where accused Nos. 6 to 11 were present. It is alleged by the prosecution that the fifth and sixth accused took an amount of Rs.15,000/-, a ring and a hand chain made of silver and the car and three mobile phones owned by the de facto complainant.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and also the report of the investigating officer.

¶23

Bail Application No.409 of 2018

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. The case diary as well as the report of the investigating officer shows that the petitioner had an active role in abducting the de facto complainant and committing robbery. It is also seen from the report of the investigating officer that he could not arrest the petitioner as he was absconding. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be highly essential to complete the investigation in the case in an effective manner. Considering these aspects, I find that the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected and the petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/- (R. Narayana Pisharadi, Judge)

¶27

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami v. State of Kerala

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

Karim Kodumayil Vs E.Salim

Raveendran P.A Vs State of Kerala

A.T.V. Damodaran Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Jayadevan Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar G.S Vs State of Kerala