Plea Of Swapna Suresh Anticipatory Bail Dismissed: Kerala HC
D.D:09-06-2022
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.
SWAPNA PRABHA SURESH
V/S
Station House Officer & Anr.
