CRL.P/7861/2026 of SADAF G MOHAMMED Vs THE STATE on 6 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was absconding in respect of Crime No.38/2026. On 20.04.2026, the complainant received the credible information about presence of petitioner in his house at Kemmannu. Accordingly, when the Police team reached the spot near Kemmannu Bridge of Paduthonse Village, he managed to escape jumping from terrace onto adjacent shed. At that time, Police also found three cars in his garden land and this petitioner was also suspected regarding usage of these cars for committing illegal activities. Accordingly, all these vehicles were seized and the petitioner evaded his arrest showing non- co-operation for investigation and ultimately, he was apprehended and the matter is still under investigation.

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no nexus between the petitioner and Maruthi Swift car. In fact, it is owned by one Abdul Latheef, who has now filed an application before the jurisdictional magistrate for its release. Petitioner had taken the said car to attend a marriage and he is a permanent resident having a permanent abode and he is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed and ready to extend his co- operation for investigation.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are 6 cases registered against him and he is an offender from 2018 onwards and several cases are registered against him in Crime Nos.156/2018, 22/2022, 116/2025, 34/2021 and 38/2026, including NDPS offences and so also Crime No.16/2026. In this year itself, there were three cases registered against him and vehicles are seized from his property and those vehicles are not having permanent documents and vehicle numbers are

HC-KAR

tampered and the petitioner used the same for illegal activities. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State and also taking note of the fact that when the Police reached near the house, he jumped from the terrace and ran away from the place and vehicles are also seized from his property and those vehicles were not having any documents. When such being the case and when there are 6 cases registered against him and he is having criminal antecedents from 2018 onwards and also involved in SCST offences, NDPS offences and other IPC offences and with regard to investigating the matter in respect of crime in this case is concerned, his presence is very much necessary. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the said submission of the counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that he is having criminal antecedents and also number of cases are registered against him and until the investigation is completed, if he is released on bail, there are chances of he

HC-KAR

once again fleeing away from justice and it would be very difficult to secure him again taking note of his conduct and when the Police went to arrest him, he managed to escape by jumping from the terrace onto the adjacent shed and thereafter, with great difficulty, he was apprehended. Hence, at this juncture, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court after filing of the charge-sheet.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2