AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 341 wordsC.S.Sudha, J
This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/4th accused seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.61/2021 of Erumapetty Police Station in Thrissur District, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
The prosecution case is that the accused 4 in number in furtherance of their common intention of cheating the informant, on 24. 9.2020 took the car belonging to the informant on rental basis and thereafter did not return the car or pay the rent promised to the informant. Hence the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.
The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is still at its initial stage.
The informant herein has been impleaded as the additional third respondent in this case. The additional third respondent seriously opposes the bail application. It is submitted that the petitioner/4th accused is the kingpin of the crime syndicate involved in deceiving vehicle owners. Their modus operandi is to get possession of vehicles by deceiving the owners ; then take it out of the State, dismantle the vehicles and sell the parts of the vehicles. It is also submitted that the petitioner/4th accused has criminal antecedents and that Crime No.640/2021 of Alleppey Police Station and Crime No.432/2021 of Thodupuzha Police Station have been registered against the petitioner/4th accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
The allegations against the petitioner/4th accused are very serious. Involvement of other persons is also seen. A proper and thorough investigation would be required to bring out all these aspects. The investigation is at its initial stage. The petitioner/4th accused has criminal antecedents also. That being the position, this does not appear to be a fit case in which the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked.
Hence this application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.