Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Shanto @ Shantappan on 7 January, 2016
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 8452 of 2015 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 590/2015 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
APPLICANT(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 18:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SHANTO @ SHANTAPPAN, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.PAILAN, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
2. JITH, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SIVAN, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
3. DENNIS, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.DAVIS, POTTAKKARAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
4. SIVADASAN, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRAN, CHAVARAKKARAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
5. BINEESH @ KANNAN, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, CHAZHIKKADAN HOUSE, ITHUPPADAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
6. VIPIN BABU, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.BABU, CHERAYKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR KUNNU
7. RAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AYINIKKADAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM
PAPPALIPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE
8. SANDEEP,AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.NANDANAM, PULINATTU HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
9. REKIN @ PAKRU, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.RAVI, MANAKKATHODAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
10. JINEESH, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.RAVI, PALLATHERI HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
11. KRISHI, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.RAJU, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
12. ANEESH @ KUNJUNNI, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, KALLINGAPPURAM, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
13. RAHUL, AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, ERATTU HOUSE
KAVANADU MATTATHUR KUNNU DESOM, MATTATHURVILLAGE
14. AASHIQUE, AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.AZEEZ, MANAKKULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE
MATTATHUR DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE
15. RAVI, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHETTIYADAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
16. VYSHAG, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.PRABHU, KURUPPATH HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
17. RENEEK @ SUTTU, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.RAVI, MANAKKATHODAN HOUSE, VYASAPURAM DESOM
MATTATHUR VILLAGE
18. MITHUN @ KANNAN, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AALOORATHAN HOUSE
VYASAPURAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SHRI K.I.ABDUL RASHEED.
THIS BAILAPPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.8452 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2016
ORDER
Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 18 in Vellikulangara Police Station Crime No.590 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 158, 201, 341, 324, 307, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the records do show the active involvement of accused 1 to 6 in the incident. According to the learned Senior Counsel, other accused persons have been implicated only on political rivalry. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that they are innocent and they are roped in with Sections 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the petitioners are legally entitled to get bail for the reason that their continued detention in custody is not necessary for a fair trial of the case.
BA No.8452/2015 2
5. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution opposed the bail application.
I had considered the matter on 14.12.2015 and disposed of B.A.Nos.7229 and 7369 of 2015. I had perused the case diary. The order passed by this Court, referred to above, shows that the petitioners are not entitled to get bail at this stage, especially when the trial court has undertaken to finish the trial before 02.07.2016. No change of circumstance is brought out. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks