Kerala High Court
Sajeer @ Shajeer vs P on 29 November, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Bail Appl. No. 8411 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 718/2016 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND 3RD ACCUSED::
----------------------------------
1. SAJEER @ SHAJEER
S/O.BAIJU, AGED 24 YEARS, PALAYAMKOTTAKKARAN HOUSE,
VETTIKKATTIRI, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR.
2. KRISHNAKUMAR @ UNNIKRISHNAN,
S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
BANGLAVUPARAMBIL, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR)
SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:P
-------------------------------------
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHORNUR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD - 679 121.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURAI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
MLG
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No. 8411 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 29th November, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.718/2016 of the Shornur Police Station, registered under Section 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by them for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Ottapalam, on 14.11.2016. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 11.11.2016.
2. The prosecution case is that, these petitioners and the other co accused assaulted the defacto complainant at the banks of the river at Shornur, and they snatched away a bag from the possession, containing some dress materials and perfumes. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged robbery was actually committed by the other accused. I find prima facie materials against all the four accused, showing their complicity in the alleged act of assault and also the act of B.A No. 8411 of 2016 2 robbery.
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 are now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.
4. The police report shows that the first accused is involved in 18 other crimes including crimes under Sections 379 and 392 I.P.C, under the N.D.P.S Act, under the Arms Act and under the PDPP Act and the 3rd accused is involved in another crime. This Court has already dismissed the application for bail brought by the 2nd accused on 18.11.2016. These petitioners do not have any special circumstance for a different order.
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 the petitioners cannot be now released on bail. Some more important witnesses remain to be questioned by the Investigating Officer, and some more materials remain to be collected as part of investigation. This process will be obstructed if the B.A No. 8411 of 2016 3 petitioner is now released. I find that effective investigation is in progress, and that the accused will obstruct investigation if he is now released on bail. I also find prima facie materials substantiating the allegations against the accused. There is also the possibility of the accused committing similar offences if released at this stage. The request for bail will be considered at a later stage when major part of investigation is over.
In the result, this application for bail is dismissed.
SD/-
P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge