Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 6 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1224/2023 OF Manimala Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONER/S: 1 ABRAHAM K.V, AGED 65 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O, VIJAYAPURAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686010 2 PADMAKUMARPADMANABHAPILLAI @ PADMAKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS S/O V.K. PADMANABHAPILLAI, , VALIYAYATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,AYTHALA P.O, RANNY, PAZHAVANGADI, PATHANAMTHITTA,LYTHALA, PIN - 689673 BY ADVS. M.RISHIKESH SHENOY Asaf Ali T LALIZA.T.Y.(K/1427/2002) RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SMT.NEEMA T.V ,SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.S.DIAS,J ====================== Bail Application No.6 of 2024 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused 4 and 5 in Crime
No.1224/2023 of the Manimala Police Station, Kottayam, registered against the accused (six in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 325, 326 , 308, 341, 427,143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec .27 of the Arms Act.
3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on
30.11.2023 at around 5.45 p.m, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and with intention to commit culpable homicide blocked the car in which the defacto complainant and his wife were travelling and the first accused hit on the face of the defacto complainant and the second accused hit with wooden stick on the hand of the wife of the defacto complainant. The accused 3 to 5 uttered obscene words and threatened them to kill the defacto complainant and the sixth accused caused damage to the vehicle. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.Rishikesh Shenoy.M, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
during the pendency of the bail application, the second petitioner/fifth accused was arrested and subsequently he was enlarged on bail by order in BA No.643/2024. Therefore, the bail application is being confined to the reliefs sought for by the first petitioner/fourth accused.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
also submitted that even going by Annexure-1 FIR and the statement recorded by the Police of the defacto complainant shows that there is no specific overt act alleged against the first petitioner. He only shouted at the defacto complainant. Thus, the non-bailable offence alleged against the first petitioner will not prima facie be attracted. The first petitioner is a law abiding citizen and 65 years of age. The accused 5 and 6 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as per orders in BA No.643/2024 and 11611/23. The petitioner’s
custodial interrogation is not necessary. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the accused 5 and 6 have already been enlarged on bail as per the orders of this Court. She also did not dispute the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner.
8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly after going through
Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-8 statement given by the defacto complainant to the Police and taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the first petitioner other than that he had shouted at the defacto complainant, I am of the definite view that the first petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, the first petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The first petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the first petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the first petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The first petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v). The first petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vi). The first petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. vii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. viii). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. The bail application in respect of the second petitioner is dismissed. SD/- sks/2.2.2024 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE