Dismissed

Sarathlal.T.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2019Bail Appl./7396/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by S. Sarathlal.T.P. in connection with robbery charges. The court rejected the plea, noting materials linking the petitioner to the crime and his criminal antecedents, and dismissed the application directing him to appear for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer implicating and subsequently produced before Magistrate.

Sarathlal.T.P Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7396 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.520/2019 OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SARATHLAL.T.P AGED 27 YEARS S/O OF BABU, THAKKARAKKAM PARAMBU, VELLAYIL P.O, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.C.PRABITHA SRI.REJOICE B.CHEMBAKASSERIL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.7396 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the applicant herein under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.520/2019 registered with Town Police Station, Kozhikode for offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

¶18

On 31.08.2019, at about 8.35 p.m., while the informant in the instant case, who is deaf and dumb was walking along the railway track near the Model School, two persons who could be identified at sight wrongfully restrained him and snatched his gold chain and robbed his purse. He lodged the information before the police and got the crime registered. While furnishing the FI statement, he also handed over a purse which fell from the body of one of the accused. The investigation revealed that the purse belonged to the applicant herein. He was thus roped in as the accused.

¶19

Sri.Nijoy P.K, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant had lost his purse on 30.08.2019 and on the next day itself he had lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellayil Police Station. According to the learned counsel,

¶20

Bail Appl..No.7396 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

this fact would show that the applicant is innocent and was roped in

¶23

as an accused on frivolous materials.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that ample materials have been collected by the investigating officer which points to the involvement of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in Crime No.310/2016, 186/2017 of the Vellayil Police Station and Crime No.1094/2015 and 1080/2016 of the Kazba Police Station. He would further contend that the victim had suffered injuries as well and reliance is placed on the wound certificate dated 02.09.2019. Finally, it is submitted that no document has been produced to evidence the fact that Annexure-1 complaint was in fact lodged before the police, thus making it unreliable.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the case diary. I find that there are materials linking the applicant herein with the crime. The accusation does not appear to be one which is actuated by malafides. In the facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

¶26

I direct the applicant to appear before the Investigating officer forthwith. After interrogation, the applicant shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. On such production,

¶27

Bail Appl..No.7396 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

if an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be

¶30

considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.

¶31

This application is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

IAP

Sarathlal.T.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarathlal.T.P 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

Mohanan K Vs State of Kerala

Sreelesh Vs the State of Kerala

Greesh P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Jithinraj.v.J, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Sreeraj Sreenivas M.S. Vs State of Kerala