Kerala High Court
Padmaraj vs The State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7377 OF 2019
CRIME NO.923/2019 OF Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
1 PADMARAJ
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. JANAKI, PRASANNA HOUSE, IRINGAL P. O.,
KOTTAKKAL, PAYYOLI PANCHAYATH, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKDOE - 673620.
2 VADAKKE KOTTOL SAJITH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KANARAN, KOTTAKKAL P. O., IRINGAL VILLAGE,
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKDOE - 673620.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RAMESH CHAND PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7377 OF 2019 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicants herein have been arrayed as the accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No.923 of 2019 of the Vadakara Police Station registered on 2.9.2019 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 308, 294(b), 506 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.
3. It appears from the prosecution records that the crime was registered based on information furnished by Sri.Vineeth Subramanyan arraying one Noushad @ Dinkan Noushad and identifiable 40 persons as the accused. According to the informant, he is the employee of CNC Film House, which is run on lease by one Vinod and managed by Krishnaprasad. On 1.9.2019, at about 11.45 pm, after the second show was over, a group of persons trespassed into the theater and assaulted the employees and the manager. They are alleged to have informed that they were the men of one R.P.Kunjahammed and his lawyer Kuttiyil Satheesan. When they questioned the acts of the intruders, the employees of Vinod were threatened and they were physically assaulted. It is specifically alleged that Noushad and his men were armed with weapons. They also destroyed the office furniture and other equipment causing loss. The Bail Appl..No.7377 OF 2019 3 theater employees were forcefully evicted from the theater and the possession of the theater was illegally taken by the hired goondas. Stating these allegations, a statement was furnished based on which the crime was registered.
4. Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants, as instructed by Sri.Sharan Shahier, the learned counsel, submitted that the applicants were roped in on 26.9.2019, based on the statement given by Sri.Vinod. The allegation against the applicants is that they were exhorting Dinkan Noushad and his men to carry out the illegal acts. He would urge that even according to the first informant, the Manager and several other employees were present when the incident had occurred. However, the presence or involvement of the applicants, who are allegedly the Manager and supervisor of Kunjahammed, were not mentioned when the FI statement was furnished. He would then contend that the police has acted at the instance of Vinod owing to his influence and the subject crime was registered based on false allegations. It is further submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been arrested and it is prayed that in view of the inconsistent allegations against the applicants, they be spared from the rigors of custodial interrogation.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the accused No.1 is a known criminal and his services were availed by Sri.Kunjahammed and others to evict Sri.Vinod, who was running the Bail Appl..No.7377 OF 2019 4 theater on the strength of a lease deed, by force. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the applicants herein were also present when the incident took place.
6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. When the FI Statement was lodged on 2.9.2019, the name or other details of the applicants herein have not been mentioned. The only person named in the FIR is one Dinkan Noushad. About 40 others, who can be identified at sight, have also been roped in. From the case diary, it appears that the applicants herein were roped in after several weeks on the strength of the statement given by Vinod, the licensee. The informant has no case that the licensee was present when the incident took place. The fact that the applicants herein are known to the employees of Vinod is clearly borne out from the records. Furthermore, I find from the case diary that none of the victims had suffered any external injury when they were examined by the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Vadakara. The contention of the learned counsel that the applicants herein were arrayed as accused at a later stage cannot be brushed aside. It is not reported that the applicants are persons with criminal antecedents. The records do not reveal that the applicants were armed with weapons or that they had inflicted any serious injuries. Furthermore, the main accused have all been arrested by the police and they were remanded. Having considered the entire facts and Bail Appl..No.7377 OF 2019 5 circumstances, the role assigned to the applicants and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.
7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE ps/22/10/2019