High Court Kerala High Court

Manikantan vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Manikantan vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3621 of 2010()


1. MANIKANTAN, S/O. ANANDAN UNNITHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :09/07/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J.
                       ---------------------------
                       B.A. No. 3621 of 2010
                  ------------------------------------
                Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010

                              O R D E R

This petition is for bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 457, 461, 380

and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution, petitioner(A2) along with first accused

in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of gold

ornaments worth 11= sovereigns and also a mobile phone and

currency notes worth Rs. 7,000/- between 30.07.2008 and

31.07.2008.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner

was arrested in connection with another crime and the formal

arrest was recorded in this case on 15.02.2010. Petitioner was

implicated in this case only because of an alleged confession

statement given by first accused. Petitioner has not committed

any offence. The charge is laid and hence petitioner is not

required for the purpose of investigation, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioner is involved in various other similar

B.A. No. 3621 / 2010 2

crimes and if bail is granted, it is likely that he may abscond,

though charge is laid in this case.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that of the

submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and if petitioner

is granted bail, it is likely that he may abscond. However,

petitioner is at liberty to move the trial court for expeditious trial

in which event the learned Magistrate shall take all steps to

dispose of the case as expeditious as possible. In case, there is

any delay in disposal, petitioner will be at liberty to move for bail

before the Magistrate court.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

ln