Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Plea Of Swapna Suresh Anticipatory Bail Dismissed: Kerala HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Swapna Suresh and Sarith PS, two of the main accused in the gold smuggling case of 2020, were denied anticipatory bail on Thursday by the Kerala High Court in a new case registered by the Kerala Police in response to Suresh's recent allegations against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Justice Viju Abraham threw out the petition after recording the Public Prosecutor's argument that the second petitioner (Sarith) was not even implicated in the crime and that an anticipatory bail petition was therefore not viable. The judge also noted that Suresh's alleged violations of Section 153 (provocation with the intent to cause a riot) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code were both bailable offences.

Advocate R. Krishna Raj appeared on behalf of the petitioners and argued that they feared arrest because Sarith was taken into custody without notice or authority and questioned about the case even though he was not a suspect in the case.

However, the Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that it was filed solely to disseminate false information to the general public. He argued that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant arrest. It was also argued that if they had a case of police harassment, they should have petitioned the court, and that a request for anticipatory bail was not the solution to their problems.

Advocate R. Krishna Raj appeared on behalf of the petitioners and argued that they feared arrest because Sarith was taken into custody without notice or authority and questioned about the case even though he was not a suspect in the case.

However, the Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that it was filed solely to disseminate false information to the general public. He argued that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant arrest. It was also argued that if they had a case of police harassment, they should have petitioned the court, and that a request for anticipatory bail was not the solution to their problems.

Soon thereafter, KT Jaleel filed a complaint alleging that Suresh had conspired with others, after which she allegedly gave false statements to the magistrate and spread false information to the media in an attempt to incite riots. IPC Sections 153 (provocation with the intent to cause a riot) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) were invoked against Suresh as a result of this complaint, and she was charged.

In this instance, the petitioner had requested anticipatory bail. Although not a defendant in the case, Sarith P.S. also requested pre-arrest bail in anticipation of his arrest. The bail application also contained serious allegations against the chief executive.

D.D:09-06-2022

SWAPNA PRABHA SURESH V/S Station House Officer & Anr.

Latest Legal News