Kerala High Court
Shanavas @ Shanu vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2017
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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 8076 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1707/2017 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM.
----------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 TO 15:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. SHANAVAS @ SHANU,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SHAJAHAN, CHARUVIL PUTHANVEEDU, HOUSE,
SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. SHIBU,
S/O.ANTAPPAN, A.J.VILLA, AGED 37 YEARS,
SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3. JOSE,
S/O.ANTONY, JOSE LAND, AGED 41 YEARS,
SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
4. SAJU JAMES,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JAMES, BANGALOWVINTE MELATHIL,
SOORANADU NORTH ,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
5. SHINE JOHNSON,
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JOHNSON, MANTHOPPIL HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH, VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
6. PRINCE,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.TAITUS, MANTHOLIL HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
7. SAMSUN,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, JIPSON HOUSE,
SOOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
TS
Bail Appl..No. 8076 of 2017 ()
------------------------------------------
8. LALU,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PETER, ROADINTER VATAKKATHIL HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
9. PRAMODE,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, JOSE BHAVANAM, HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
10. PIYUS INFANT THOMAS,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.K.T.THOMAS, JESSY VILLA, HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
11. RATHEESH,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MANULAL, PALLIPPADINJATTATHIL HOUSE,
SOORANADU NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.ASAFALI
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-12-2017, ALONG WITH BA. 8099/2017,THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
-----------------------------------
B.A. Nos.8076 & 8099 of 2017
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2017
ORDER
1.These applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The applicants in B.A. No.8076 of 2017 are accused Nos.4 and 6 to 15 and the applicant in B.A. No.8099 of 2017 is the 5th accused in Crime No.1707 of 2017 of Sooranadu Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 341, 427, 332, 307 read with 149 of the IPC and under section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act.
3.On 10.11.2017 in the evening, a migrant worker was rounded up by the locals when he was found taking videos of a girl. When it appeared that the mob would turn violent and injure the migrant worker, the officers attached to the Sooranadu Police Station reached the spot. According to the prosecution, BA Nos.8076 & 8099 of 2017 2 the petitioners herein along with 105 others, after arming themselves with dangerous weapons, assaulted the police personnel by throwing stones and assaulting them with sticks. The specific allegation is that the 2nd accused pelted stones on the de facto complainant and the 5th accused attacked another officer with a stick causing injuries. Thereafter, the violent mob is alleged to have destroyed the glasses of a police jeep and damaged the uniform of the policemen. A loss estimated to the tune of Rs.22,500/- is also alleged to have been caused.
4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 4 and 6 to 15 submitted that they were arrested on 11.11.2017 and has been in custody since then. According to the learned counsel, it is not a premeditated attack. When it was noticed that the migrant worker had taken videos of a local girl, the mob had merely rounded him. When police had reached the spot some unruly elements had thrown stones at them and had assaulted BA Nos.8076 & 8099 of 2017 3 the police men. The petitioners have no role in the acts of the miscreants and they have been roped in. It is finally submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged against any of the persons.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A.No.8099 of 2017 on the other hand submitted that no intentional act was committed by any of the accused including the 5th accused, and therefore prays that he be released.
7.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. It was submitted that two police officers had sustained injuries, as a result of the mob attack. The accused Nos. 2 and 5 were the persons who had attacked the police officers.
8.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary as well as the wound certificate. It appears that in so far as accused Nos.4 and 6 to 15 are concerned, no specific overt act has been alleged. However, this is not the case with the 5th accused. The specific allegation is that he had assaulted a Civil Police Officer with a stick BA Nos.8076 & 8099 of 2017 4 causing injury. I am therefore not inclined to grant bail to the 5th accused at this stage.
9.However, in so far as accused Nos.4 and 6 to 15 are concerned, they can now be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.
10.In the result, B.A. No.8076 of 2017 will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioners, who are accused Nos.4 and 6 to 15 in Crime No.1707 of 2017 of Sooranadu Police Station, shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Each of the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) before the court at the time of execution of the bond.
The petitioners shall be released on bail only on such deposit. If the petitioners were to be acquitted finding that they are not guilty, they would be entitled to get refund of the amount. Otherwise, the amount would be at the disposal of the Court trying the case;
(c) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9 AM and 11 AM, for a period of two months or till final report is filed, BA Nos.8076 & 8099 of 2017 5 whichever is earlier.
(d) The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(e) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail.
(f) The petitioners shall surrender their passport before the court below or if they do not have one, they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
Accordingly, B.A.No.8099 of 2017 will stand dismissed and B.A.No.8076 of 2017 will stand allowed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE vps 1/12 /True Copy/ PS to Judge