Rasik vs State of Kerala

RASIK vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 24, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1851251

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1851251
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas
Decided On: Jan 24, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./247/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RASIK

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....kerala represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam-682 031. 2 the station house officer kasaragod police station. sr.pp c.n prabhakaran this bail application having come up for admission on 24.01.2019, the court on the same day passed the following:o r d e rpetitioners are arrayed as accused nos.3 & 4 in crime no.836/2018 of kasaragod police station for offences punishable under sections 417 and 420 of ipc. according to the prosecution, on 23.11.2018 at 6.00 p.m, accused nos.1 & 2 entrusted a packet to the son of the de facto complainant while he was departing from calicut airport on his way to qatar. after reaching qatar airport he was intercepted and from the packet narcotic drugs were recovered. crime was registered and accused nos.1 &2 arrested. petitioners are sought to be implicated on the basis of an alleged confession statement of the 1st accused disclosing that petitioners handed over the contraband articles to them.2. it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only available material against them is the confessionstatement. it was contended that there is no corroborative or reliable evidence. it was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an offence under section 420 ipc will not lie in the nature of allegations.3. the allegation against the petitionersis serious. i am not inclined to go into the above questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the question is relating to the implication of an innocent person in a serious crime and the investigation is at a nascent stage. bail application fails and is dismissed. sd/- sunil thomas, judge pn 25/01

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940 CRIME NO. 836/2018 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 4: 1 RASIK, AGED 28 YEARS S/O K.K.ISMAIL, K.K. HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2 RASHEED, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. ABDULLAH, KANDRAMKUTTICHAL, MADIKKAI P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 & 4 in Crime No.836/2018 of Kasaragod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. According to the prosecution, on 23.11.2018 at 6.00 p.m, accused Nos.1 & 2 entrusted a packet to the son of the de facto complainant while he was departing from Calicut Airport on his way to Qatar. After reaching Qatar Airport he was intercepted and from the packet narcotic drugs were recovered. Crime was registered and accused Nos.1 &2 arrested. Petitioners are sought to be implicated on the basis of an alleged confession statement of the 1st accused disclosing that petitioners handed over the contraband articles to them.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only available material against them is the confession

statement. It was contended that there is no corroborative or reliable evidence. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an offence under Section 420 IPC will not lie in the nature of allegations.

3. The allegation against the petitioners

is serious. I am not inclined to go into the above questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the question is relating to the implication of an innocent person in a serious crime and the investigation is at a nascent stage. Bail application fails and is dismissed. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE Pn 25/01

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2019 Same Parties RASIK vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas