Dismissed

Sujithkumar Diliprao Jagtap v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that custodial interrogation is essential to recover melted gold stolen in a high-value theft conspiracy from a cooperative society. Concerns about witness tampering and facilitating illegal sales further denied bail.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed; applicant not entitled to favourable order due to necessity of custodial interrogation to recover stolen items.

Sujithkumar Diliprao Jagtap Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 7620 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 7620 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.732/2021 OF Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad,

¶8

Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SUJITHKUMAR DILIPRAO JAGTAP AGED 32 YEARS

¶11

S/O DILIPRAO DINKAR JAGTAP, AT.POST, BHAGYNAGAR TAL, KHANAPUR DISTRICT, SANGLI , BHAKUCHIWADI, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-415311.

¶12

BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (IN CRIME NO.732/2021 OF CUSBA STATION PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SREEJA V

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON 10.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 7620 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.732 of 2021 of Palakkad Cusba Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused between 9 p,m on 24.07.2021 and 6.00 a.m on 25.7.2021 have broke open the lock of Marutharoad Co-Operative Rural Credit Society with the intention to commit theft and trespassed into the building and broke open the strong room and committed theft of 7554.16 gms of gold ornaments, an amount of Rs.18000/-, the DVR and such other items, and thus stolen articles worth Rs.3 crores and proceeded to Maharashtra. Then the said stolen articles were handed over to the 2^nd accused by the 1^st and the 3^rd accused and the 2^nd accused handed over to the 4^th accused and they together melted the gold ornaments and converted as gold ingots and then sold the same in certain jewelry shops including the jewelry shop owned by the 4^th accused and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶23

Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 7620 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

It is submitted that he is a gold merchant in Maharashtra. He has not purchased gold ornaments as alleged by the prosecution. He has absolutely no criminal antecedents. The attempt of the investigating agency is to save the real culprits.

¶28

But the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting that the gold ornaments were entrusted to this petitioner and he melted the same and converted as gold ingots and they together sold the same in some jewelry shops and he has also taken a sizeable portion of the same. Though accused No.1 and 2 were arrested only 2780.750 gms were recovered by the investigating agency. So custodial interrogation of this petitioner is absolutely necessary to recover the entire gold . The 3^rd accused is also absconding.

¶29

Huge quantity of gold was lost in theft. The prosecution case itself is that the entire articles were entrusted to this petitioner who converted the same as gold ingots so as to facilitate illegal sale of the same to various jewelry owners. The entire items were not recovered though accused No.1 and 2 were arrested . It is true that they were released on bail after several days of custody. Since the presence of this petitioner in custody is

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 7620 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

required to recover the entire articles, granting of pre-arrest bail will definitely affect the case adversely. Moreover,the possibility of influencing the witnesses to the case and thus to tamper with the evidence also cannot be ruled out. Since custodial interrogation of this petitioner is found absolutely necessary to proceed with the investigation and to recover the entire items lost in theft, I find that he is not entitled to get a favourable order of pre-arrest bail.

Dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V

JUDGE

smm

Sujithkumar Diliprao Jagtap v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujithkumar Diliprao Jagtap 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

Saseendran Nair R Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Susilkumar E.K Vs the State of Kerala

Anupa Mery Vs State of Kerala

Ansif A.H. Vs the State of Kerala

Jishnu v R Vs State of Kerala