The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was the 5th accused in a crime involving assault and robbery. The court held it was not a fit case for bail due to the nature of allegations and the accused's criminal antecedents.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Bail refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 2721 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SUDHEESH C.N AGED 23 YEARS CHIRAMEL PRAMBIL, MUNDAMVELI P.O, SANTHOM COLONY, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 507 ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682571 BY ADV N.P.PRAJEESH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 BY SR.PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
BAIL APPL. NO. 2721 OF 2021
ORDER
The 5th accused in Crime No. 4 of 2021 of Thoppumpadi
Police Station is before Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
submissions. According to him, the offence alleged against the petitioner and four others are under Sections 341, 323 and 395 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. He also read out the first information statement, which indicates that the defacto complainant was first seen by the culprits inside Karuna Beer Bar. After consuming beer when the defacto complainant went out, they had allegedly chased him and wrongfully restrained him and snatched away a gold chain weighing 2 ½ sovereigns worth Rs.90,000/- and ran
3
BAIL APPL. NO. 2721 OF 2021
away from the place. Even though the other accused have been arrested, only a portion of the gold chain has been recovered. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the involvement of the petitioner has brought out through the CCTV footages of the Bar and nearby institutions. The
petitioner is a person having criminal antecedents, involving two NDPS
crimes.
case for granting anticipatory bail. In the nature of the allegations, his custodial interrogation is necessary.
prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks;
in that case, his case shall be considered with utmost expeditioun.
Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
avs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is a fit case for the petitioner charged with offences under Sections 341, 323, and 395 of the IPC.
Whether the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the necessity of custodial interrogation justify denying bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDHEESH C.N
STATE OF KERALA
K. HARIPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
