Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 1062 of 2019 CRIME NO. 1510/2018 OF Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 MARRY, W/O.MURUKAN, (A1) MARAPPEDA PURAMBOKKU BHAGAM, 2 VALLI, AGED 39 YEARS, (A2), W/O.MURUKAN, MARAPPEDA PURAMBOKKU BHAGAM, 3 DEVI,
(A3) W/O.SATHEESAN, MARIYAMMAM KOVIL, 3RD STREET, CHENNASELAM RAILWAY STATION, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN SRI.K.R.SRIPATHI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (STATE): STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O OF KARUKACHAL POLICE P.S. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031. BY SRI.AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1063/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 1063 of 2019 CRIME NO. 1514/2018 OF Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 MARRY, W/O.MURUKAN, (A1), MARAPPEDA PURAMBOKKU BHAGAM, 2 VALLI, AGED 39 YEARS, (A2), W/O.MURUKAN, MARAPPEDA PURAMBOKU BHAGAM, 3 DEVI,
(A3) W/O.SATHEESAN, MARIYAMMAM KOVIL, 3RD STREET, CHENNASELAM RAILWAY STATION, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN SRI.K.R.SRIPATHI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (STATE): STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O OF KARUKACHAL POLICE P.S. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031. SRI T R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1062/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 3
ORDER
These applications are filed under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicants herein are ladies. They have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1510 of 2018 and Crime No.1514 of 2018 of the Karukachal Police Station. Both these crimes have been registered inter alia under Section 394 of the IPC.
3. Sequence of events would reveal that on 29.11.2018 at 10 p.m., while the Station House Officer, Karukachal Police Station along with his party were conducting routine patrol duty, the applicants were spotted. Entertaining a belief that they are persons suspected of having committed an offence of theft, they were taken into custody. A search was conducted at the Police Station and it was found that one of the accused had concealed
a broken gold chain in her body. The crime, which was originally registered under Sections 41(b) of the IPC was later altered to Section 379 and later to Section 394 of the IPC. Later in the day, the de facto complainant in Crime No. 1510 of 2018 approached Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 4 the Police and gave information that her grand daughter's chain was stolen by certain persons and she identified the applicants herein. She also stated that the gold ornament, which was seized from their possession was the one worn by her grandchild. Immediately thereafter, on 30.11.2018 at 11.10 p.m., another lady approached the Karukachal Police Station and gave information that on 29.11.2016 at 6.30 p.m., while she was sitting on the side wall of the St.John's Baptist Church, the applicants herein had pushed her down and thereafter, the 1 st accused had snatched away her gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns worth Rs.70,000/-. On the basis of the said information, the applicants herein were roped in as accused in the said crime as well. It appears that in both these crimes, they have been in custody from 30.11.2018 on wards.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
submitted that they are innocent. According to the learned counsel, the applicants were arrested and the authorship of crime was later placed on their shoulders. It is further submitted that the 1st applicant is the native of Palakkad District and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the person from Tamil Nadu and they were Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 5
engaged in selling ladies fancy items during church fests. He would also refer to Annexures-C, D and E identification proofs of the applicants and would contend that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting their application. The learned counsel took pains to remind this Court of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1978 SC
429) and he fervently contended that a person on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. It was urged that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Referring to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (3) SCC 22], it was submitted that though the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously, in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the severity of the allegations, submits the learned counsel.
Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 6
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that both the crimes were registered one after the other and there
are materials showing the involvement. It is further submitted that the applicants are persons with no fixed place aboard and if they are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they will make themselves scarce.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
gone through the materials made available. It appears that the final report has been laid in both these cases. Certain ID proofs have been placed before this Court by the applicants herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case, further detention of the applicants herein are not required. I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions, the applicants can be released on bail.
7. In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The
applicants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court Bail Appls.1062 & 1063/19 7 below. The sureties shall be persons having immovable properties in the State of Kerala. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1). At the time of execution of the bond, the applicants shall produce attested copies of their driving licence/Aadhar card/bank details or any other valid identification proof which shall contain details of their permanent place of abode. 2). They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month until the trial is over. 3). They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence. 4). They shall not commit any offence while they are on bail. 5). They shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission from the court having jurisdiction.
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 DSV/22.2.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE