Mikdad vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 30, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1853025

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/1853025
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas
Decided On: Jan 30, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./379/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mikdad

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....on the same day passed the following:o r d e rpetitioners apprehending arrest in crime no.115/2019 of ernakulam town north police station for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 ipc seeks bail. the prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant who is a bengalee employed in a hotel at kottayam was in the habit of purchasing lottery tickets. it is stated by him that he purchased one 'win win' lottery of kerala government. it got prized. since he was afraid of disclosing it to others, he informed few of his friends, who advised him to seek the help of the hotel manager. thereafter, they contacted the bank manager, who informed that only it can be collected through an account and on production of the identity card. he sought the help of the petitioner in b.a. no.379/2019. it is stated that the above petitioner assured to collect the money for him, got the lottery ticket from himand presented it in the joint account maintained by the petitioner in b.a.no.379/2019 and the petitioner in b.a. no.380/2019. contending that the petitioner in b.a. no.379/2019 has thereafter absconded, complaint was laid. apprehending arrest, petitioners seek bail.2. the stand of the petitioners in b.a.nos.379/2019 and 380/2019 is that they have jointly purchased the lottery ticket and after prizing it, it was submitted for collection through the joint account.3. on investigation it is revealed that, it has been confirmed on the basis of the available materials that the de facto complainant had in fact prized the ticket.4. it was submitted by the learned public prosecutor that the petitioner in b.a. no.380/2019 has not been arrayed as an accused till now. hence, b.a. no.380/2019 is closed reserving the right of the petitioner in b.a. no.380/2019 to move afresh, if he is arrayed as an accused.considering the serious nature of allegations and the stage of investigation, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in b.a. no.379/2019. b.a. no.379/2019 fails.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 379 of 2019 CRIME NO. 115/2019 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MIKDAD, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.HASSAINAR (LATE), KALLUVALAPPIL (H), BHOODANAM.P.O, VELUMBLYAMPADAM, EDAKKARA, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.380/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioners apprehending arrest in Crime No.115/2019 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC seeks bail. The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant who is a Bengalee employed in a hotel at Kottayam was in the habit of purchasing lottery tickets. It is stated by him that he purchased one 'win win' lottery of Kerala Government. It got prized. Since he was afraid of disclosing it to others, he informed few of his friends, who advised him to seek the help of the hotel manager. Thereafter, they contacted the Bank Manager, who informed that only it can be collected through an account and on production of the identity card. He sought the help of the petitioner in B.A. No.379/2019. It is stated that the above petitioner assured to collect the money for him, got the lottery ticket from him

and presented it in the joint account maintained by the petitioner in B.A.No.379/2019 and the petitioner in B.A. No.380/2019. Contending that the petitioner in B.A. No.379/2019 has thereafter absconded, complaint was laid. Apprehending arrest, petitioners seek bail.

2. The stand of the petitioners in B.A.

Nos.379/2019 and 380/2019 is that they have jointly purchased the lottery ticket and after prizing it, it was submitted for collection through the joint account.

3. On investigation it is revealed that, it has been confirmed on the basis of the available materials that the de facto complainant had in fact prized the ticket.

4. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner in B.A. No.380/2019 has not been arrayed as an accused till now. Hence, B.A. No.380/2019 is closed reserving the right of the petitioner in B.A. No.380/2019 to move afresh, if he is arrayed as an accused.

Considering the serious nature of allegations and the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in B.A. No.379/2019. B.A. No.379/2019 fails and is dismissed. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE Pn 30/01

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