High CourtsSingle Bench

Ubais vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 KL CK 0212

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viju Abraham, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 395
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8231 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

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

13 paragraphs · 443 words

Viju Abraham , J.

1.

This is an application for Regular Bail.

2.

The petitioner is arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.121/2021 of Mattannur Police Station, which is registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.02.2021 at about 04:20 a.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 9 committed dacoity by robbing away 1 kg of gold which the agents of the defacto complainant was carrying, along with the 2nd accused, in an Innova car from Kannur Airport to Vadakara. The other accused are alleged to have conspired with the 2nd accused in stealing the above gold. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 are said to have way-laid the above said Innova car near Mattannur town, physically assaulted the agents of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated them by placing knife upon their neck and took away the gold worth Rs.47 lakhs. Thus the accused have alleged to have committed the offence.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above said crime. Eventhough the alleged offence has occurred on 13.02.2021, the complaint was preferred only on 27.02.2021, and the delay is not explained. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except accused Nos. A8 and A9, all the other accused are released on bail.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor oppose the bail application and upon instructions submitted that gold worth Rs.47 lakhs was taken away by the accused and further that the petitioner is involved in another crime.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 01.09.2022, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but only on stringent conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.121/2021 of Mattannur Police Station, on every Saturday at 11 a.m. until filing of final report;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence any witness in Crime No. 121/ 2021 of Mattannur Police Station;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 121/2021 of Mattannur Police Station, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.