Dismissed

Ashraf m v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC17 Mar 2021Bail Appl./4497/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that despite the applicant having no criminal antecedents, sufficient material existed to prove complicity in a grave robbery case, precluding the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; applicant directed to surrender to investigating officer within two weeks.

Ashraf m Vs Public Prosecutor — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.541/2019 OF Medical College Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ASHRAF M AGED 35 YEARS KUNNATHA THAZHAM HOUSE, KINASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673007 673007

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.541/2019 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 365 & 395 of IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.07.2019 at about 11 a.m., while the de facto complainant was coming on his scooter bearing registration No. KL 57Q 6499, the applicant and the other co-accused in furtherance of common intention came in a car bearing registration No. KL 9Z 5500, waylaid the de facto complainant and abducted him into a car and took him

¶21

to a place situated between Kottamparambu and Mundikkal Thazham and robbed him of Rs.4,20,000/- which he was having in his possession. Thereafter, he was dropped at a place called Kalandithazham and they drove away.

¶22

The applicant states that the allegations are untrue and the 1^st accused was the first person arrested and it is according to his alleged confession statement that the applicant also has been implicated as an accused in this crime.

¶23

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2020 3

¶24

It is stated that the 1^st accused had an axe to grind against him because he had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the 1^st accused for the treatment of his son's disease and he belated the repayment of that amount for that reason the 1^st accused had animosity towards him and keeping that animosity in mind, he has deliberately stated the name of the applicant, as one of the persons involved in this crime. The applicant has no criminal records and therefore he seeks prearrest bail.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that it is the confession statement of the 1^st accused, which initially pointed out towards the involvement of the applicant, but there are other corroborative materials also available against the applicant, like call details records, the tower location of the mobile etc. to indicate that the applicant was present on the date and time of occurrence. Even though it is admitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, his complicity in this crime is well established from the evidence collected against him. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶27

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2020 4

¶28

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that apart from the confession statement of the co-accused, there are also other materials pointing out towards the complicity of the applicant. Whether those are sufficient or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court during evidence and this Court is not in a position to conclude regarding the sufficiency of those materials against the applicant. But since there are sufficient materials to prove his complicity, he is definitely not entitled to the discretionary and extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail as the offence alleged is grave in nature.

¶29

The application is therefore disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on the same day.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

rmm

JUDGE

Ashraf m v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf m 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

K.P. Priji, Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Preeja Vs State of Kerala

Nissar U Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligencde

Santhosh.E.P. Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Vs State of Kerala

Hyderali M.K. Vs State of Kerala