Ashraf M vs State Of Kerala

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 3rd accused in Crime No.541/2019 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 365 & 395 of IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.07.2019 at about 11 a.m., while the de facto complainant was coming on his scooter bearing registration No. KL 57Q 6499, the applicant and the other co-accused in furtherance of common intention came in a car bearing registration No. KL 9Z 5500, waylaid the de facto complainant and abducted him into a car and took him to a place situated between Kottamparambu and Mundikkal Thazham and robbed him of Rs.4,20,000/- which he was having in his possession. Thereafter, he was dropped at a place called Kalandithazham and they drove away.

The applicant states that the allegations are untrue and the 1st accused was the first person arrested and it is according to his alleged confession statement that the applicant also has been implicated as an accused in this crime. It is stated that the 1st accused had an axe to grind against him because he had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the 1st accused for the treatment of his son's disease and he belated the repayment of that amount for that reason the 1st accused had animosity towards him and keeping that animosity in mind, he has deliberately stated the name of the applicant, as one of the persons involved in this crime. The applicant has no criminal records and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that it is the confession statement of the 1st accused, which initially pointed out towards the involvement of the applicant, but there are other corroborative materials also available against the applicant, like call details records, the tower location of the mobile etc. to indicate that the applicant was present on the date and time of occurrence. Even though it is admitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, his complicity in this crime is well established from the evidence collected against him. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that apart from the confession statement of the co-accused, there are also other materials pointing out towards the complicity of the applicant. Whether those are sufficient or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court during evidence and this Court is not in a position to conclude regarding the sufficiency of those materials against the applicant. But since there are sufficient materials to prove his complicity, he is definitely not entitled to the discretionary and extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail as the offence alleged is grave in nature.

The application is therefore disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on the same day.