Dismissed

Althaf Bakkar, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2019Bail Appl./352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a bail application by two accused persons in a case involving abduction and robbery. While the bail application was closed for the second petitioner who was already arrested, the court dismissed the bail for the first petitioner, finding the serious allegations of conspiracy and presence at the incident did not make him a fit candidate for pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the first petitioner dismissed; bail application of the second petitioner closed as he was already arrested.

Althaf Bakkar, Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 352 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 634/2018 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4:

¶8

1 ALTHAF BAKKAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O BAKKAR, KURUKKALAKATH HOUSE, MUTHUVATTOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506.

¶9

2 FASILU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O SEMU, KOPPARA HOUSE, THIRUVATHARA, KOTTAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SENIOR PP D.CHANDRASENAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 352 of 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.11 and 10 respectively in Crime No.634/2018 of Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur District, for offences punishable under sections 363, 397 and 120B of IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2018 at 6.45 am., accused Nos. 1 to 11 in furtherance of their conspiracy to abduct the defacto complainant and rob him of gold ornaments, the accused waylaid the defacto complainant, who was proceeding in a car. They damaged his car and took away the valuables. The petitioners apprehending arrest, have approached this court seek bail.

¶21

At the time of hearing, it was submitted that the second petitioner, who is the 10^th accused was arrested on 3.4.2019 and his bail application is hence closed. The contention of the learned counsel for the first petitioner is that he has absolutely no connection with the crime and

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 352 of 2019

¶24

that he is sought to be falsely implicated on a mere assumption that he is involved in a previous crime.

¶25

The case diary made available by the learned

¶26

Public Prosecutor indicates that there are materials alleging that the first petitioner is involved in the conspiracy and as well as in making arrangements for the commission of the crime. CDRs evidencing his presence within the tower location of the place of incident and that continuous calls made to several persons including the accused are also brought on record. Considering the serious nature of allegations I feel that this is not a fit case in which the benefit of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the first petitioner. Accordingly, bail application of the first petitioner fails and is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶29

R.AV

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

PA to Judge

Althaf Bakkar, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Althaf Bakkar, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moideen Vs Kalanthan

Sebastian George, Vs The Hdfc Bank Ltd.

T.C.Mamootty Vs Keloth Puthiya Purayil Nooruddeen

Yadhukrishna Vs State of Kerala

Sahal v.J., Vs the Senior Intelligence of Officer

Sudhir Lalchand Nagpal Vs Shammi Nagpal