Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2012
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 3338 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 266/2012 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT
------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
RAJESH, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. RAMANKUTTY, REMYA BHAVAN, NEDUMKANDAM P.O
IDUKKI, PIN-685553.
BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA)
RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI - 685 001.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.3338 of 2012
---------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.266/2012 of Santhanpara Police Station. It is alleged that the accused persons in pursuance of a conspiracy which was hatched with intend to destroy the Government documents, between 5 PM on 13.4.2012 and 6 AM on 16.4.2012, broke open the front door of the Village Office, Chathurangappara and entered the said office and committed theft of thandapper register, LR receipt books and other records from the shelf of the office and thereafter set fire to the same and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Secs.120(b), 457, 380 and 461 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act. It would actually attract the offence under Sec.4 of PDPP Act, in which case, the offence would be triable by Court of B.A. No.3338 of 2012 -: 2 :- Sessions because the punishment prescribed thereunder may extend to imprisonment for 10 years. The petitioner has been in custody from 22.4.2012 onwards.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no overt act is attributed against him. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner was the Village Assistant and it was with the help and assistance of this petitioner the offence was committed by the accused and as such the role played by this petitioner is more serious than that of the others. Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against A5 and A6 and it was to thwart that RR Proceedings, registers and documents of the Village Office were stolen and destroyed setting it on fire. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the act complained of, a thorough investigation has to be done in the matter. Release of the petitioner at this stage will hamper the investigation.
B.A. No.3338 of 2012 -: 3 :-
3. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the materials collected in support of the allegations and the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering the evidence and the apprehension of threat to the complainants are matters to be gone into while considering the application for bail. The materials available on record would prima facie show that there is merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant.
4. The prosecution contends that the accused are powerful persons who would interfere in the course of investigation and would also indulge in similar criminal activity and that they would tamper with evidence and threaten or terrorise the witnesses and would indulge in similar such activities which would hamper smooth investigation. The contention raised by the prosecution that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or B.A. No.3338 of 2012 -: 4 :- becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage.
The bail application is dismissed.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt