Dismissed

Shanavas v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4465/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court rejected the petitioners' plea for anticipatory bail. The court found that the gravity of the alleged kidnapping and dacoity offences precluded the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Shanavas Vs Public Prosecutor — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4465 OF 2020

¶6

Crime No. 834/2020 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SHANAVAS SHANAVAS K.A, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SALAM, KALLUMCHIRA HOUSE, 23/518, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 682006

¶9

2 HAFIZ M.A HAFIZ M.A, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O ASHARAF 13/112 – A, PANAYAPALLI KOCHI. 682006

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.ROHITH

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682031

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4465 OF 2020 2

¶17

ASHOK MENON, J

¶18

============================

¶19

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4465/2020

¶20

==============================================

¶21

DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

The applicants are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No. 834/2020 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs. 365, 347 and 395 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants along with the co-accused, kidnapped the defacto complainant and restrained him illegally for one day and also robbed him of his Polo Car because he refused to pay the share of the money he had won in a lottery. The defacto complainant had allegedly won a prize for a lottery purchased by him. He was legally entitled to, lesser amount after deduction of tax due. He got the contacts of some of the accused, who agreed to pay him the entire prize money with only a small deduction, by them towards their commission. Even though the defacto complainant agreed to that offer, on an afterthought, he retracted from the offer, for the reason that, he did not have faith in the persons who offered the money. Thereafter, the defacto complainant presented the lottery before the bank and collected the money which was legally due to him, after

¶26

Bail Appl..No.4465 OF 2020 3

¶27

deduction. Irked by this act of the defacto complainant, the applicants and the other accused, in furtherance of common intention, allegedly kidnapped the de facto complainant, detained him in a house and extorted payment of the commission agreed. He did not have money with him and so, in lieu of that money, his new Polo Car was stolen by the applicants and others and committed the offences. The applicants state that they have nothing to do with the alleged kidnapping or dacoity and that they are innocent and may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶28

After having heard both sides, I find that considering the gravity of the offences alleged against the applicants, the manner in which the de facto complainant was kidnapped and restrained for a whole day compelling him to part with his car, the applicants are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail in this case.

¶29

In the result, the application is disposed of with a direction to the applicants to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After their interrogation, in the event of their being arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court, where they are at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be considered and disposed of, preferably on the very same day. Sd/-

¶30

Shanavas v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas v. Public Prosecutor

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

Shreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sunitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Sunitha Kumari, Vs State of Kerala

Sini Manjesh, Vs State of Kerala

Sini Manjesh Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf P K Vs Public Prosecutor