Dismissed

Ashik Ma v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC12 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4510/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by three accused persons. The court found the underlying kidnapping and extortion charges to be grave, necessitating custodial interrogation, and thus denied the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicants directed to surrender; liberty to apply for regular bail after production before Magistrate.

Ashik Ma Vs Public Prosecutor — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.834/2020 OF Thoppumpadi Police Station, Ernakulam

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

1 ASHIK MA AGED 30 YEARS, S/O AKBER, KALLUMCHIRA HOUSE, 13/423, KOCHANGADI, ERNAKULAM. PIN 682002

¶8

2 FARSHAD T.E, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM THOPIIL (H), 7/481, PANAYAPALLI KOCHI. PIN: 682002

¶9

3 SAFEESH C.M, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O HANEEF 6/711, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERY. PIN: 682001

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.ROHITH

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 12th day of August 2020

¶19

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶20

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶21

The applicants are the accused 1, 3 and 5 in

¶22

Crime No.834/2020 of Thoppumpadi Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶23

under Sections 365, 347 and 395 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant had won a lottery. He was told that he would not get the entire prize money and a portion of it would be deducted towards tax. On enquiries made by him, he came to know about some of the accused who agreed to hand over the entire amount due as per the lottery to him without any deduction, and in remuneration, they demanded a portion of the prize amount. Subsequent enquiries made by the de facto complainant revealed that the accused were not the proper

¶25

Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

persons to deal with. So, he presented the lottery before the bank for collection in a legal manner. This irked the accused including the applicants and hence, on 06.07.2020 at about 6.45 p.m, they kidnapped the defacto complainant in an autorickshaw and brought him to an isolated place where he was subjected to assault and confined for a day. They demanded a huge sum of money for his release. He did not have the money that they demanded, and in the alternative, they demanded his new Polo car which too was also not readily available with him. The next day they collected the car. Till such time, the de facto complainant was detained by them. Thus, the applicants and others committed the crime. Some of the accused were arrested. A6, who was arrested, applied for a regular bail which was dismissed by this Court. The applicants seek anticipatory bail.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶31

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶33

submits that the applicants are innocent and that

¶34

the allegation as per the FIS is that the de facto complainant was subjected to assault for a whole day. Despite that, he has not sustained even a

¶35

scratch for an injury. This, according to the learned counsel, would belie the entire

¶36

prosecution case and therefore, the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor points out

¶38

that, applicants have criminal antecedents. They had detained the de facto complainant a whole day for extorting money, and ultimately robbed him of the car in lieu of the money which they demanded.

¶39

Considering the gravity of the offence, the

¶40

learned Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail. It is submitted that the investigation is still going

¶41

on, and releasing the applicants on bail would

¶42

Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

definitely hamper the smooth progress of the investigation. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail, and certainly not a pre-

¶45

arrest bail. The applicants will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation and therefore, the prosecution may not be deprived of that opportunity of interrogation.

¶46

After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the offence committed by the applicants is very grave, and considering the gravity of the offence and the

¶47

manner in which the de facto complainant was kidnapped for the purpose of extorting money, and detained for a day, and then robbed of his car, I find that the applicants definitely will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation. Therefore, they are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a pre-arrest bail in this case. The application is therefore dismissed.

¶48

Bail Appl..No.4510 OF 2020

¶49

The applicants are directed to surrender

¶50

before the investigating officer within two weeks.

¶51

On being produced before the jurisdictional

¶52

Magistrate, the applicants shall be at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate, preferably on the very

same day.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Ashik Ma v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashik Ma 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

Anubha Sinha Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Joseph P Kuriakose Alias Achankunju Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs Mr. Basudev Mandal

Franco Vs State of Kerala

Stanly Paul Vs Public Prosecutor