Disposed

Gopan.M.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2020Bail Appl./6747/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. It observed the applicant's flight behavior indicated guilt and directed him to surrender for interrogation regarding the unlicensed gun.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied. Applicant directed to surrender within two weeks for interrogation; liberty to apply for regular bail after arrest.

Gopan.M.G 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 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.6747 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.1612/2020 OF Ranni Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GOPAN M.G., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, KUZHIKKALAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, VAYALATHALA P.O PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689672.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.MINIMOL R.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Bail Appl.No.6747 OF 2020

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 14th day of December 2020

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶19

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime

¶21

NO.1612/2020 of Ranni Police Station for having

¶22

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.09.2020 at about 7.15 PM, the Sub Inspector of

¶24

Police intercepted an Alto Car being driven by the 1st

¶25

accused with the applicant as a passenger. On

¶26

interception of the car, the applicant allegedly fled

¶27

away from there leaving behind a country-made gun. The 1st accused was apprehended and remanded to judicial

¶28

custody. The statement of several persons were recorded, which indicated that the applicant was

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl.No.6747 OF 2020

¶31

involved in hunting of wild boar and that the countrymade gun was used for that purpose.

¶32

The applicant states that the allegations are all untrue and that he had entrusted his motorcycle for repair at a workshop and on seeing an Alto Car coming along with the road, he hitchhiked the car along with three others, including the 1st accused, who was

¶33

driving the car. In between the car was intercepted, the two persons sitting in the back seat fled away from there, along with them, not knowing what was happening, the applicant also fled away. He has absolutely nothing to do with the gun, which was recovered from the car, and therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

¶36

statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer points out towards the antecedents of the applicants, although no crime has so far been

¶37

Bail Appl.No.6747 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

registered against him. It is stated that the applicant was the person, who was holding the gun and he abandoned the gun while fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. It is also stated that the 1st accused was arrested and his statement was recorded. The applicant will have to be questioned regarding the acquisition of the gun, and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

¶40

After having heard the submissions made by both sides, I find that there is no prosecution case regarding the two other persons in the car fleeing away along with the applicant. If the applicant was only a hitchhiker in the car, there was no necessity for him to flee away from there on being intercepted by the police. The fact that he fled away from there itself

¶41

would indicate towards his involvement in the possession of the unlicensed country-made gun. The prosecution will have to be given an opportunity to interrogate the applicant regarding the acquisition of

¶42

Bail Appl.No.6747 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

the gun. Even though the applicant does not have any recorded antecedents, statements of the witnesses indicate that he is involved in hunting of wild animals.

¶45

Under the above circumstances, the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, if any, and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same day.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶48

dkr

Gopan.M.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopan.M.G 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

Jacob Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Sarath N.S Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala

K.M. Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Vs State of Kerala