SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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