High Court Kerala High Court

Faizal.K vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 1 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Faizal.K vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 1 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3273 of 2010()


1. FAIZAL.K,S/O.AHMED KUTTY,AGED 29 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :01/07/2010

 O R D E R
                                 K.HEMA, J
                            -----------------------
                        B.A No.3273 OF 2010
                        --------------------------------
                 Dated this the 1st day of July 2010

                                   ORDER

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 457, 380 r/w 34 of

IPC. According to prosecution, first and second accused were

arrested under suspicious circumstances by Thamarassery police

on 02/05/2010. On questioning, it was revealed that they, along

with third and fourth accused, committed theft of rubber sheet and

latex and the place of incident is within the limits of

Peruvannamuzhy police station. The case was transferred to that

police station. As per the prosecution case, accused numbers 1 to

4 went to the place of occurrence and A1 to A3 broke open the

building and removed the stolen articles in the autorikshaw

belonging to fourth accused. After selling the same, Rs.5,000/- was

given to fourth accused.

3. Petitioner is the fourth accused. Learned counsel for

petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the

allegations made. His name is not mentioned in the FIR. He is

implicated only because of a confession statement of the co-

accused. There is no evidence against him, it is submitted.

B.A No.3273 OF 2010 2

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that on questioning the accused who were arrested,

it has come out that the autorikshaw belonging to petitioner

was used for transportation of the stolen articles. It is also

revealed that after the theft, Rs.5,000/- which was obtained

after selling the stolen articles was handed over to petitioner.

Petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting the

recovery of autorikshaw and for effective investigation, it is

submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, taking into consideration the

serious allegations made against petitioner and the need for

recovery and custodial interrogation,I am satisfied that this is

not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to

surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with

investigation without any delay.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA
JUDGE

vdv