Kerala High Court
Renjith Kumar @ Monkuttan vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2016
Author: P. Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/17TH BHADRA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 6525 of 2016
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 689/2016 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-----------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
--------------------
1. RENJITH KUMAR @ MONKUTTAN,AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU,
VATTAKKARIKKAKAM DESOM, ULIYAZHUTHURA VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. VISHNU @ MANU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.WILSON, RESIDING AT
PINKI HOUSE, VATTAKKARIKKAKAM DESOM,
ULIYAZHUTHURA VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
-----------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P. UBAID, J
---------------------------------
B.A.No.6525 of 2016
----------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the two accused in Crime No.689 of 2016 of the Vattappara Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 34 IPC, and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. They seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the petitioners' second application for bail. Their first application was dismissed by this Court on 17.08.2016. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 17.07.2016.
2. The prosecution case is that at about 8.30 p.m. on 13.07.2016 at Vembayam, these petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant after creating a tense situation by exploding a bomb, and they inflicted simple and serious injuries on his body with weapons like bill hook etc; in an attempt on his life. On a perusal of the prosecution records, I find that the remnants of the exploded bomb were seized by the police, and that the victim had sustained some serious injuries in the alleged incident. It is revealed by the B.A.Nos.6525 of 2016 2 prosecution records that it was a calculated attack on the defacto complainant. Of course, as regards Section 307 there may be some doubt as to whether this is really a case of attempt on the life of the complainant. But definite materials are there to show that the petitioners had the definite knowledge of consequence that their acts may cause death. Thus a clear case under Section 308 IPC is well made out.
3. This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.
4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that investigation in this case is practically over, and that the petitioners can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioners in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.
In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The B.A.Nos.6525 of 2016 3 petitioners will be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;
a. The petitioners shall report before the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad, between 10 am to 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.
b. The petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Vattappara Police Station for a period of two months.
c. The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses, and they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.
d. The petitioners shall not enter the revenue village, where the house of the victim is situated.
Forward a copy of this order to the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad, who will report compliance of conditions directly to the learned Magistrate.
Sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE
sd
// True Copy // P.A. to Judge