Bail application for anticipatory relief dismissed. Court held petitioner a habitual offender required for custodial interrogation, finding no justification for pre-arrest bail in this case.
Application dismissed; directed to surrender within ten days.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 4TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5088 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 680/2019 DATED 22-06-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
CRIME NO.597/2018 OF Ponnani Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUNEER AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI P. O., KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505.
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
Bail Appl..No.5088 OF 2019
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.597/2018 of Ponnani Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
as loan from the said concern.
under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has
-3-
Bail Appl..No.5088 OF 2019
submitted that the petitioner is also involved in two other crimes of similar nature. It appears that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of this case. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary to ascertain as to whether or not the petitioner had also committed similar other offences, apart from this offence and the two other offences mentioned above. The source of spurious gold is also to be found out. Since it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, if the petitioner is granted prearrest bail, there is likelihood that the petitioner will repeat similar offences, exceeding the liberty on bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified.
-4-
Bail Appl..No.5088 OF 2019
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Nkr/26.08.19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MUNEER
THE STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
