Kerala High Court
Jasim vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8855 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 13691/2019 DATED 20-11-2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
CRIME NO.478/2019 OF Varandarappally Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS 1 & 2:
1 JASIM
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, PADIKKATHODI HOUSE, SIVAJI NAGAR DESOM,
VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURM TLAUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
2 JIBIN,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE,KATTALAM HOUSE, POUND DESOM,
VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURM TLAUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM-682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019
ALONG WITH B.A.NO. 8847/2019 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8847 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 13690/2019 DATED 20-11-2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
CRIME NO.478/2019 OF Varandarappally Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
AGHILNATH
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. VISWANATHAN, MUTHALAKKULAM HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI
DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY
POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019
ALONG WITH B.A.NO.885/2019 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.8855/2019& con.case 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos. 8855 & 8847 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2019
ORDER
The two petitioners in B.A.No.8855/2019 and the sole accused in B.A.No.8847/2019 have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 among the three accused in the instant Crime No.478/2019 of Varantharappilly Police Station, Thrissur which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, 354, 452, 308, 34 and 427 of the IPC. The said Crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant on 15.11.2019 at about 12 noon in respect of the alleged incident which happened on the previous day (14.11.2019) at about 10 p.m.in the night.
2. The prosecution case in short is that three accused persons herein were travelling a motorcycle on 14.11.2019 at about 10 p.m and when they reached in front of the house of the de facto complainant, they alleged that A1 had fallen off the motorcycle, when sitting behind it on account of hitting against the hand of one Sri. Delson, friend of the de facto complaint, who was talking with him and his worker and thereupon, the accused persons had provoked and A1 had slapped Sri. Delson, when the de facto complainant's elder brother, Sri. Mohanan had tried to intervene to obstruct, A1 had hit Mohanan on his head and face with his hands and A3 had pushed aside the house of the de facto Crl.M.C.No.8855/2019& con.case 4 complainant's house and got damaged. A3 had broken the fancy light infront of the de facto complainant's house causing cost of more than Rs.2,000/- . A2 had threatened the de facto complainant and demanded money for treatment of A1 and hit with a granite stone on the de facto complainant's head. As the de facto complainant evaded the blow, the stone struck his head causing bump on his head. Again A2 hit the de facto complainant with granite stone which struck against the left eye of the defacto complainant's worker by name, Sri.Ravi, who was standing near to the de facto complainant, thus causing him injuries. If, at that time, the de facto complainant had not evaded the blow by A2 using the granite stone, it would have resulted in grave injury and consequent death. Seeing the elder brother of the de facto complainant being beaten up, his wife Deena got scared and that affected even her mental balance. Thus, thereby the accused persons have committed the above said offences. The three accused persons have been arrested on 15.9.2019 and after their remand, have been under detention since then.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the above said allegations are false and baseless and further that no serious allegations for overt acts are alleged as against A3 and that since the applicants have suffered detention for the last 24 days, now this Court may order release them on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the plea for regular bail and has pointed out that the investigation has not been completed Crl.M.C.No.8855/2019& con.case 5 and that the accused persons have taken law into their own hands and caused extreme fear in the minds of the de facto complainant and his family members and that all these three accuse persons herein are the history sheeters and are involved in series of crimes with serious adverse criminal antecedents.
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that no serious overt acts have been made as against A3. On being queried, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the details mentioned in coloumn No.12 of the F.I.R that A3 had broken open the gate etc., may not be correct and the F.I.S. states that the said act was done by A2. The allegations against A1 and A2 are quite serious and in view of their adverse criminal antecedents and as the investigation has not been completed, this Court is inclined to concur with the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that releasing A1 and A2 at this stage will be detrimental to the conduct of the investigation. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has raised serious apprehension that in view of the fact that A3 is also a history sheeter, there is every possibility of A3 intimidating and influencing the witnesses more particularly, the de facto complainant and his family members, if he is let off on bail. Taking note of the above said apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is ordered as a safeguard that A3 shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the de facto complainant and his family members are residing until the conclusion of the trial process in this case subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter. Accordingly, it Crl.M.C.No.8855/2019& con.case 6 is ordered that the plea for regular bail made by A1 and A2 will stand rejected. However, it is ordered in the interest of justice that A3 in this case (sole applicant in B.A.No.8847/2019) shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties each for the like sum both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i). Accused No.3 (petitioner in B.A.No.8847/2019) will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the next 6 months. Thereafter the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.
(ii). Accused No.3 (petitioner in B.A.No.8847/2019)shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper with the evidence.
(iii). Accused No.3 (petitioner in B.A.No.8847/2019) shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(iv) In case A3 commits any offences more particularly, the offences of similar nature, then the Investigating Officer will conduct summary enquiry immediately and file necessary report along with the applications before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned for cancellation of the bail granted to A3 hereby and thereupon the said Court shall hereby autorised to consider the said plea and take decision thereon after hearing both sides in accordance with law.
(v) Accused No.3 (petitioner in B.A.No.8847/2019)s hall not enter into or reside anywhere within the limits of the Police Station within whose limits the de facto complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to the courts in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.
(vi) However, if there is any genuine need, the petitioner may Crl.M.C.No.8855/2019& con.case 7 temporarily enter into the said Police Station limit but only with due permission of the Investigating Officer.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
With these observations and directions, the above Application will stand disposed of.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
acd