CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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