Kerala High Court
Magistrate Of First Class vs Anil on 9 August, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941
Bail Appl.No.5690 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 5983/2019 DATED 04-07-2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHALAKUDY
AGAINST THE ORDER IN BAIL APPL.5189/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CRIME NO.523/2019 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2, 3, 4 AND 6
1 ANIL,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. APPUMON, KUTTAMPARAN, ANAVALAVU, VATANAPILLY
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 RAJEESH,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ASOKAN, CHEKKANVAD, VYASA NAGAR, VATANAPILLY
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
3 VAISAKH,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, PAUL VEETIL HOUSE, NEAR ANAVALAVU,
VATANAPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
4 VYSAKH,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. ARJUNAN, ITHIKKATT VYASA NAGAR, VATANAPILLY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5 NAVEEN,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. PRAKASHAN, ARAVEETIL HOUSE, VYASA NAGAR,
VATANAPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS
B.A.No.5690 of 2019
2
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5690 of 2019
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
B.A.No.5690 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 09th day of August, 2019
ORDER
The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the instant crime No.523/2019 of Chalakudy Police Station which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 395, 323, 324 and 118 r/w 149 of the IPC. One Sunil, who is the brother of A1 (Anil) was having some financial transaction with one Jackson, the son of the defacto complainant in Muscat and the money is allegedly due from the latter to the former. Out of the said animosity, the accused Nos.1 to 6 on 17.06.2019 at about 1.45 p.m., had formed themselves in an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object to cause hurt to the de facto complainant and her family members had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant. The 1 st petitioner (A1) had beat the lady de facto complainant's husband with an iron pipe and thereafter the accused persons had caused damage to various household articles including utensils, almirah, gas stove, television, windows, doors and vehicle parked in front of the house to the tune of B.A.No.5690 of 2019 4 Rs.5 lakh in the house of the de facto complainant. Further, the accused persons had stolen the CCTV camera installed in the house of the defacto complainant.
2. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 20.06.2019 and accused Nos.4 and 6 have been arrested on 28.06.2019 and they have been under judicial custody since then. It appears that the accused 5, 8 and 9 are still absconding and have not been apprehended by the Police. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the above said allegations have been falsely foisted on the accused persons and further that the continued detention of the petitioners is no longer necessary in this case. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that originally there are only six persons in the accused array and later, the Police has additionally included accused Nos. 7 to 9 and that accused No.7 was arrested and remanded and thereafter let out on regular bail etc.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the allegations raised against the petitioners are false and further that having regard to the fact that petitioners 1 to 3 have already suffered detention for the last 50 days and 4th and 6th petitioners have suffered detention for about 42 days, this Court may order to release them on regular bail, subject to any stringent conditions, as their further detention may not be necessary. B.A.No.5690 of 2019 5
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of regular bail and has submitted that the accused 5, 8 & 9 are absconding and had not been apprehended by the police till date and further that the petitioners may intimidate or influence the witnesses including the lady de facto complainant, if he is let out on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the petitioners are residing within the territorial limits of Vatanapilly Village, whereas the lady de facto complainant is residing within the territorial limits of Chalakudy Police Station, where the crime is registered. It is proposed to order that the petitioners shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the police station, within whose limits the de facto complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the trial subject to certain exceptions, which would be dealt with hereinafter. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on regular bail on their separately executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:
(i). Petitioners will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the next four months.
Thereafter the petitioners shall report before the B.A.No.5690 of 2019 6 Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.
(ii). Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper with the evidence.
(iii). Petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case, the petitioners commit any offences of similar nature, then the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court concerned is thereby authorize to cancel the bail of the petitioners, after getting a report from the Investigating Officer, after hearing both sides.
(iv) Petitioners shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence of the de facto complainant and shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the de facto complainant is residing until the conclusion of the trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Police in connection with the abovesaid crime or any other crimes or for attending any courts in relation to this case or for contacting lawyer/ Advocate concerned.
(v) If the petitioners have any emergent personal needs to visit the said area, he may do so only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
5. 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 Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd/09.08.19