Dismissed

Raj Kapoor v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2021Crl.MC/370/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation or modification of an anticipatory bail order requiring surrender of a vehicle involved in a dispute. The court held the facts suggested a civil dispute regarding bank loan liability and found no grounds to interfere with the anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition to cancel anticipatory bail order or impose condition surrendering vehicle is dismissed.

Raj Kapoor Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Crl.MC.No.370 OF 2021(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1344/2020 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

CRIME NO.2468/2020 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

RAJ KAPOOR, S/O ABDUL KARIM, 47 YEARS, MADATHIL HOUSE, MADANADA, KOLLAM-10.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.N.HASKAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & ACCUSED:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶13

2 SYED MUHAMMED, S/O. MOHAMMED SALI, 38 YEARS, SABINS VEEDU, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM-690 518

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEVALLABHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN (KARUNAGAPPALLY)

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.370 OF 2021(E) 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner sought to cancel Annexure A2 anticipatory bail order or to modify the same by imposing a condition directing the accused to surrender the vehicle involved to the investigating officer. It is a case wherein a vehicle was purchased with the subsisting liability over it with a bank with the specific agreement that the liability will be discharged in due course. Inter alia, it was alleged that the balance sale consideration was not paid as agreed. Prima facie it appears that what is involved is a civil dispute. Anticipatory bail granted hence deserves no interference. The investigating agency shall expedite the investigation, preferably within three months. Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.370 OF 2021(E) 3

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO. 2468/2020 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, DATED 208-2020

¶28

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1344/2020 DATED 20.10.2020 OF HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CRL.M.C. NO. 5106/2020 DATED 16.12.2020 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶29

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEXURE R2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN CRL.M.C.5106/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶31

ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THAT ORDER DATED 12-10-2020 IN CRL.MP 806/2020 IS PRODUCED HERE WITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE R2(B)

¶32

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Raj Kapoor v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kapoor 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreejith. K.K Vs State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan T. Vs Deepu Sudhakaran

Moideen Koya Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Kenichi Ayukawa Vs State of Kerala

Sajiraj P.R Vs State of Kerala

Pankaj Bhandula Vs State of Kerala