Kerala High Court
Devasia Alias Kuttai vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 May, 2012
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 3310 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO.266/2012 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
..................
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :
-----------------------------------------
DEVASIA ALIAS KUTTAI,
S/O. DEVASIA, AGED 51 YEARS,
PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KURANGUPARA BHAGAM,
RAJAKKADU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM.
RESPONDENTS/STATE :
------------------------------------
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, SANTHANPARA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 619.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.3310 of 2012
---------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.266/2012 of Santhanpara Police Station. It is alleged that the accused persons in pursuance of a conspiracy which was hatched with intend to destroy the Government documents between 5 PM on 13.4.2012 and 6 AM on 16.4.2012 the accused broke open the front door of the Village Office, Chathurangappara and entered the said office and committed theft of thandapper register, LR receipt books and other records from the shelf of the office and thereafter set fire to the same and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Secs.120(b), 457, 380 and 461 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act. It would actually attract the offence under Sec.4 of PDPP Act, in which case, the offence would be triable by Court of Sessions because the punishment prescribed thereunder may extend to imprisonment for 10 years. The accused was arrested on 21.4.2012.
B.A. No.3310 of 2012 -: 2 :-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against him is that his vehicle was used for transporting papers alleged to have stolen from the Village Office. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that A1 was the real king pin of the whole machination. Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against A5 and A6 and it was to thwart that RR Proceedings, registers and documents of the Village Office were stolen and destroyed setting it on fire. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the act complained of, a thorough investigation has to be done in the matter. Release of the petitioner at this stage will hamper the investigation.
3. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the materials collected in support of the allegations and the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering the evidence and the apprehension of threat to the complainants are matters to be gone into while considering the application for bail. The materials available on record would prima facie show that there is merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant.
B.A. No.3310 of 2012 -: 3 :-
4. The prosecution contends that the accused are powerful persons who would interfere in the course of investigation and would also indulge in similar criminal activity and that they would tamper with evidence and threaten or terrorise the witnesses and would indulge in similar such activities which would hamper smooth investigation. The contention raised by the prosecution that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage.
The bail application is dismissed.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt