Kerala High Court
Rinshad vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.3551 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1689/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI
CRIME NO.324/2020 OF Ponnani Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/A4:
RINSHAD
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.YOUSAF, MANIYARAKAMKUNNU HOUSE, CHERIPPURU,
PERINGANNUR P.O, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-
679535.
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 3551/2020
-2-
O R D E R
[ Bail Appl..3551/2020 ] Dated this the 10th day of July 2020 Application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in crime 324 of 2020 of Ponnani Police Station, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 364, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is thus:-
The accused in this case, including the petitioner, 12 in number, aggrieved with the BA 3551/2020 -3- de facto complainant for being an informer to the Police about the accused persons' engagement in pushing and sale of Ganja, hatched a conspiracy to kidnap the de facto complainant and extort money from him, was allegedly kidnapped by the 1st accused from his house on 9/05/2020 at about 19:15 hours, under the guise of seeking his help to identify the house of one Sainuddin, an acquaintance of both of them, took him to Chirakkal, where accused 1 to 5 reached, and after the 1st accused showed the de facto complainant to them, he left the place, and thereafter, A2 to A5, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant in a car bearing registration No. KL 55 Q 1094, assaulted him with hands and the 2nd accused hit him on his face, with a gun, and thereafter, A2 to 5 BA 3551/2020 -4- took him to an isolated place called Vattakkunnu, where the rest of the accused joined them, accused 2 and 3 robbed him of his wallet containing Rs.6,000/- A2 scribbled on his back and under his feet with a knife, and the rest of the accused assaulted him with hands while A5 and the petitioner, kicked him after he was brought down on the ground. Thereafter, they demanded a ransom of Rs. 4,00,000/-as ransom from his father for his release.
4. It is stated that the petitioner was not initially arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R which had only 6 persons implicated as accused, stating 6 others as identifiable persons. The petitioner's name finds place as the 4th accused only in the remand report, alleging that he had along with the 5th BA 3551/2020 -5- accused, assaulted the de facto complainant by kicking him after he was made to prostrate on the ground.
5. The petitioner submits that he has no criminal antecedents and is innocent in this crime. The petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, but the same was dismissed on 01/06/2020. He was thereafter arrested on 5/06/2020. Consequent to his arrest, the petitioner had filed an application before the JFCM, Ponnani. That too was dismissed.
6. The petitioner states that his entire family including an aged mother is depending on him. He has been in judicial custody for more than a month and hence seeks regular bail. Aggrieved with his false implication in this case, when the Police officers attempted BA 3551/2020 -6- to apprehend him on 4/06/2020, he expressed his resentment, which was interpreted as an attempt to escape from Police custody after causing hurt to the Police officers on duty. Consequently, crime No. 369/2020 was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 225(b), 332, and 353 of the Indian penal code. That apart, the petitioner has no other involvement in any criminal case. Further incarceration of the petitioner may not serve any purpose, particularly in these pandemic times when Ponani has been declared as a hotspot and a containment zone.
7. Heard Shri. Arun Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri. Amjad Ali, the learned public prosecutor. Available records perused.
8. The petitioner has admittedly no BA 3551/2020 -7- other criminal antecedents apart from the aforementioned two crimes registered in succession against him. There is no evidence regarding his involvement in any drug case. He was not wielding any weapon. The overt act attributed to him is that he had along with the 5th accused take the de facto complainant while he was lying prostrate on the ground. There is no indication that the petitioner may attempt to abscond. It is true that the petitioner had attempted to escape from the Police custody when he was apprehended for this case. The explanation given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for this is the that the petitioner being innocent, was venting his resentment. The said solitary act cannot be interpreted as an act of attempt to abscond. The petitioner is a BA 3551/2020 -8- young boy aged 24. He has been in judicial custody since 05/06/2020. Further custody of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary for the investigation of this case. To ensure the presence of the accused for trial, conditions can be imposed.
9. In the result, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction Magistrate, and on following further conditions:-
(i) he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for;
(ii) he shall not get involved in any similar case during the currency of the bail; BA 3551/2020 -9-
(iii) he shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses;
(iv) he shall not leave the jurisdiction of his residence without seeking permission of the jurisdictional Court;
(v) he shall surrender his passport, and if he doesn't have one, filed an affidavit before the jurisdictional Court.
Breach of any of the conditions referred to above shall entail in cancellation of the bail on an application filed by the prosecution before the jurisdictional Court.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg