Dismissed

Pratheesh, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2023Bail Appl./2073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two accused persons implicated in a robbery and criminal conspiracy case involving armt and theft, holding that the allegations are serious and the investigation is ongoing.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. The petitioners were directed to surrender within two weeks for interrogation and be produced before the Magistrate for bail consideration.

Pratheesh, Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2073 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO. 546 OF 2022 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/SUSPECTED ACCUSED:

¶8

PRATHEESH, AGED 40 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, 40 YEARS, MADATHODI HOUSE, NOCHUPPULLI PO. PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678592

¶9

BY ADVS. V.T.RAGHUNATH A.K.PREETHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO VALAYAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDING KOCHI,, PIN - 682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV. NIMA JACOB - PP, ADV. C S HRITHWIK - SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2326/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶20

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 2326 OF 2023

¶22

CRIME NO. 546 OF 2022 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶23

PETITIONER/SUSPECTED ACCUSED:

¶24

MANIKANDAN B, AGED 30 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, MANIPRASAD NIVAS, MANNATHARA, PUTHUPPARIYARAM PO. PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678731

¶25

BY ADVS. V.T.RAGHUNATH A.K.PREETHA

¶26

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶27

STATE OF KERALA

¶28

REPRESENTED BY THE SHO VALAYAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDING KOCHI,, PIN – 682031

¶29

ADV.SHRI.C S HRITHWIK - SR PP

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2073/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶32

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

[Bail Appl. Nos.2073/2023, 2326/2023]

¶35

Both these applications are filed by the accused in Crime No.546/2022 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364, 394, 395, 120(B), 212 IPC.

¶36

Petitioner in B.A.No.2326/2023 is the 10^th accused, whereas, petitioner in B.A.No.2073/2023 is filed by the 11^th accused in the aforesaid crime.

¶37

The prosecution case is that, on 06.12.2022 at about 05.00 a.m the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention waited at Walayar Toll Plazza near NH 544 and when the defacto complainant along with his friend came in a car bearing registration No.KL 10 AU 9437 the accused persons, as part of their plan, obstructed the said vehicle, attacked them and taken away Rs.15 lakhs, which were brought by the defacto complainant. It is alleged that they have also damaged the mobile-phone of the friend of the defacto complainant. It is

¶38

¶39

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶40

alleged that the vehicle in which the defacto complainant and his friend was travelling was also taken away. The crime was registered in such circumstances. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested initially. Subsequently, the petitioners were also implicated as accused persons. When the crime was registered none of the accused were named, but only stated that identifiable persons, more than five in number, have committed the above offences. During the course of investigation accused Nos.1 to 9 were initially arrested. As the petitioners apprehend in connection with the investigation of the said case, these applications for anticipatory bail are submitted.

¶41

Heard Sri.Raghunath V.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners raised various contentions in support of the plea of anticipatory bail. It is pointed out that, all the accused; i.e. accused Nos.1 to 9, who were arrested, were already released on bail. It is pointed out that, at the time when the applications for bail were submitted by any of the said accused persons, nothing was suggested as to the

¶43

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶44

¶45

role of accused Nos.10 & 11. It is also pointed out that when the applications for bail of the other accused, who were arrested, were being considered, it was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the investigation is substantially over and it was on that reason they were released on bail. It is pointed out that even at that occasion, there were no reference about the petitioners herein. By placing reliance upon the same, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, they were subsequently implicated without any material. Petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶46

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes these applications. The case diary was made available for perusal and by placing reliance upon the contents of the same, it is pointed out that, specific role has been played by both the accused persons. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused Nos.10 and 11 were the persons who instructed the other accused to commit the aforesaid offences and they were physically present at the place of occurrence by giving timely

¶47

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶48

¶49

instructions to the other accused through messages on whats-app as to the location of the car which was under attack.

¶50

From the consideration of the materials placed before me, it can be seen that there is specific allegations against the petitioners and the matter is being investigated. The allegations raised are very serious in nature. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offences and the role allegedly played by the petitioner in commission of the crime, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of with the following directions:

¶51

(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigation officer, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, for subjecting themselves for interrogation;

¶52

(ii) Upon such surrender and after interrogation, if any, the petitioners shall be produced by the investigation officer, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction, on the very

¶53

BAIL APPL. NO.2073/2023, 2326/2023

¶54

¶55

same day of surrender itself, to enable the petitioners to seek bail, provided they surrender before 10.30 a.m of the day.

¶56

(iii) The Judicial First Class Magistrate, upon production of the accused and filing of application for bail, may consider the bail application in accordance with law, and if possible, dispose of the same on the same day of filing of the said application.

¶57

These Bail Applications are disposed of with the above

¶58

directions.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

shg

Pratheesh, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheesh, 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

G.R. Neethu Vs State of Kerala

Babu Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nobel Lopez. B @ Nobel Nobert Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Prathapan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rinshad.a.K ., Vs State of Kerala