AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Haripal, J
The first accused in Crime No.58/2021 of Peruvannamuzhi Police Station is before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail. He faces, along with three
others, offence under Section 392 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had financial deal with one Muneera, sister of Mubeena, the owner of the pick up van, that
he has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor disputes the above submission. According to him, while a Bolero Pick up van was being driven by the defacto
complainant, the petitioner and three others came on his way, obstructed him, forcibly pulled him out and taken away the van. The other three accused
have already been arrested; later, the vehicle was seized in an abandoned condition from elsewhere. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly
opposed the application since the scooter, which was ridden by the petitioner for reaching the spot of offence, has not been recovered.
In the circumstances and having regard to the nature of the offence, I am not convinced that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. The
material object, the scooter, which was used for the commission of the offence has to be recovered. Gravity of the allegations also impell this Court to
consider the application. Therefore the application is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.