Kerala High Court
Merin Francis vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6710 of 2018
CRIME NO. 827/2018 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:
MERIN FRANCIS, AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O FRANCIS, PARAPPULLY HOUSE,
PATTIKKAD P.O., PANANCHERRY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 653
BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2018,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6720/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6720 of 2018
CRIME NO. 827/2018 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7 AND 9 TO 11:
1 ANI RAPPAI,
AGED 20 YEARS,S/O RAPPAI,
PAYYAPPILLI HOUSE,
PEECHI P.O. - 680 653,
PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
2 JUSTIN SIMON,
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SIMON,
ALAPPATT HOUSE, P.O. KANNARA-680652,
PANANCHERY, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
3 MUHAMMED ASHIQ P.M,
AGED 19 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ANZARI,
PALAYAMKODE HOUSE,
P.O.OLLUKARA-680655,KALATHODE,
OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
4 ATHUL T.J,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. JAGADEESAN T.P,
THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.CHENAIPARA-680653,
MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
5 AKHIL K.BABU,
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.BABU K.V,
KANJIRATHIN CHALIL HOUSE,
P.O. POOVANCHIRA-680652,
PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
6 SHERIN POULOSE,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE,
THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, P.O. CHENAIPARA -680653,
PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 3
7 JISON M.J,
AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.JOY M.J.MENACHERY HOUSE,
P.O. CHENAIPARA -680653,
PEECHI VILLAGE ,THRISSUR.
8 NEJIN N.J,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH N.J,
MATTATHIL HOUSE,
P.O.PEECHI-680653,PEECHI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR.
9 YEDHUKRISHNAN,
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN,
THEKKILA HOUSE, P.O.PEECHI-680653.,
PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
10 SHYAM SHAJI,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.P.N.SHAJI,
PADINJARE KUTTOOR HOUSE,PO.AMMADAM-680563,
AMMADAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN- 682 031.
(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION
THRISSUR - 680 306.)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.10.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6710/2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 4
ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 11 in Crime No.827 of 2018 registered at the Ollur Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
3. According to the prosecution, applicants herein are members of ABVP and KSU. On 7.9.2018 at 1.15 pm, they are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with the requisite knowledge and in prosecution of their common object to cause bodily injury to the de facto complainant, who is a rival union member, entered the campus of the Government College, Kuttanellur, with weapons. The 1st accused is alleged to have wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him causing injuries. The 2nd accused pushed him down and the 3 rd accused is alleged to have attacked him with an iron pipe. The rest of the accused were members of the assembly and the allegation against them is that the incriminating acts were done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.
B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 5
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the applicants are students and that they were at the receiving end at the hands of the de facto complainant and others, who are members of SFI. It is further submitted that the rival party members were the actual aggressors.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that as many as 7 Crimes have been registered in connection with rival groups of students of the said College and a tense law and order situation is prevailing. The release of the applicants on pre-arrest bail will give a fresh impetus to the feuding students to attack each other is the submission.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. Insofar as accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, there are materials which clearly shows their involvement. The victim and others have clearly detailed their role. The wound certificate of the victim also probablizes the case of the prosecution. However, insofar as the accused Nos.4 to 11 are concerned the allegations are somewhat general in nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 6 the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 in Bail Application No.6720 of 2018 are not entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. The application insofar as the applicant Nos.1 to 3 are concerned will stand dismissed. They are directed to surrender and seek regular bail. Insofar as the rest of the applicants are concerned, their custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessitous for an effective investigation.
7. In the result, these applications will stand partly allowed. The applicant Nos.4 to 10 in B.A.No.6720 of 2018 and the sole applicant in B.A.No.6710 of 2018, who are accused Nos.4 to 11, 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 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The accused Nos.4 to 11 shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of 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.B.Appl.Nos.6710 & 6720 of 2018 7
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 IAP