Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Nizar.K.M vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6723 of 2008()


1. NIZAR.K.M, AGED 23 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GHUZRO.C.A, AGED 20 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :05/11/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.
                   ---------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.6723 of 2008
                   ---------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 5th November, 2008


                                 O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with

Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, a mini lorry was

purchased in the name of defacto complainant. For purchasing

the lorry, a fund (Rs.50,000.-) was advanced by the petitioners,

who are accused nos.1 and 2. The sale was effected for Rs.1

lakh. There was also a finance to the tune of Rs.85,000/-.

Petitioners sold the vehicle without the knowledge of defacto

complainant to a third person for dismantling the vehicle. When

this fact came to the notice of defacto complainant, a complaint

is filed alleging that the defacto complainant was cheated.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

petitioners are aged 23 years and 20 years. They are innocent of

the allegations made. The lorry is already seized. Admittedly,

some amount was advanced by petitioners also. If petitioners are

detained in custody, they will be put to irreparable injury, harm

and loss and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is

BA No.6723/2008 2

submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

submitted that though petitioners have advanced some amount,

they have no right to sell the vehicle. They not only sold it, but,

it was so done, for the purpose of dismantling the same. The

allegations made against petitioners are serious and hence, it is

not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

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

submissions made by learned public prosecutor. Even if the age

of petitioners is considered, I am not persuaded to grant them

anticipatory bail. However, it is made clear that all the

contentions raised including age can be taken raised while filing

a petition for bail under Section 437 Crl.P.C. Needless to say,

consideration for anticipatory bail is different from consideration

for bail under Section 437 or 438 Crl.P.C.

With these observations, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.183 seconds.