Arjun Rangith v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/5TH ASHADHA, 1937 BAIL APPL. NO. 3544 OF 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO.100/2015 OF KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2,3, & 4:
-------------------------------
1. ARJUN RANGITH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. RAVI, PUTHENKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERY P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT
2. ABY, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. THAMOAS PJ, PATHALIL HOUSE, CHENNAPPADY P.O. KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM
3. ANILKUMAR S., AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SULOCHANAN, NANUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PASUPPARA P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685586.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V.S. SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: NS
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
------------------------------- B.A. No.3544 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2015
O R D E R
-------------- Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.100 of 2015 of Karimannoor Police station registered for the offences under Secs.143, 145, 149, 342, 365 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the uncle of the 1st informant owed some amount from the 1st accused. Demanding the amount the accused kidnapped the 1st informant's father and later released him.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Learned counsel submits that the recovery has been effected and the co-accused have been arrested and released. The article involved in the case is the vehicle in which the 1st informant's father was kidnapped.
5. Merely because the vehicle has been seized and the co-accused have been arrested and released, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Custodial
B.A. No.3544 of 2015 2 interrogation is necessary in the nature of the case. In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge