Dismissed

Muhammed Aneesh K v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. held that the petitioner, alleged to be a member of a kidnapping gang, was not entitled to bail as it would hinder investigation, directing him to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender to investigating officer within two weeks.

Muhammed Aneesh K v Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5863 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.577/2018 OF Kunnamangalam Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUHAMMED ANEESH K V AGED 27 YEARS PAZHAYA VEETTIL, NADUVATTOM, KOZHIKODE 673028

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.5863 OF 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 23rd day of November 2020

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant is an accused in Crime No.577/2018 of Kunnamangalam Police Station for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Shiju @ Tinku was found missing on 04.09.2018 and his mother had made a complaint before the police. In consequence of which, a crime was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The aforesaid Tinku surfaced after some time and the crime was also closed on the basis of that. Subsequently, on getting discreet information, the crime was reopened for the reason that Tinku was actually kidnapped by a gang led by Kadavi Ranjith at the behest of a person from Kasaragod, who had allegedly hired the accused persons for the purpose of kidnapping Tinku who had allegedly stolen gold belonging to that person. It is in consequence of that the aforesaid Tinku was kidnapped and

¶22

Bail Appl..No.5863 OF 2020 3

¶23

detained wrongfully by the accused persons. A large number of gold was already recovered by the persons from Tinku but still some more remains and therefore, he was continuously placed under detention. Subsequently, he somehow managed to get released from there and returned home and the crime was closed in the earlier instance. The applicant allegedly belong to a criminal gang of kidnappers and had allegedly kidnapped the

¶24

person for the purpose of robbery of which he had allegedly taken from the person in Kasaragod.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has not got the entire instructions from the police. But the learned counsel for the applicant insists on hearing because it has been adjourned a couple of times.

¶28

Considering the fact that the applicant is a member of a

¶29

known criminal gang involved in very grave offence of kidnapping, assault and also for attempt of murder, the investigation will have to continue and the applicant cannot be released on bail because it would adversely affect the

¶30

Bail Appl..No.5863 OF 2020 4

¶31

investigation at this stage. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicant definitely not entitled to the extra ordinary remedy of an anticipatory bail in this crime. He is therefore directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the

¶32

very same day.

¶33

SD/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶34

rmm

Muhammed Aneesh K v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Aneesh K v. Vs 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

Mary Sunesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr Vipila Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen N Vs Public Prosecutor

Lalkitchu Vs State of Kerala

Akhil M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Ramsudheen M.R @Achu Vs State of Kerala