Kerala High Court
Arun M vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
BAIL APPL.NO.5424 OF 2021
CRIME NO.251 OF 2021 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 995/2021 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.VIKRAMAN, PUNNAVILA VEEDU,
MOOLABHAGOM, PULAYAMKUNNU, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 141
BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5440/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.Nos.5424/2021&5440/2021 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5440 OF 2021
CRIME NO.251 OF 2021 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 975/2021 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONERS:
1 ARUN M.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM,
VALLABHAM NINNAVILA, KARIPPURAM, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 141.
2 MUKESH M.S.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.MOHANAN NAIR, KUNNATHUVILA VEEDU,
VENKULAM, EDAVA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 310.
BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl No.5424/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.Nos.5424/2021&5440/2021 3
ORDER
These are applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
In BA.No.5424 of 2021, the 7th accused is the petitioner whereas in
the other application accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.251 of 2021
of Chathannur Police Station are the petitioners. The crime was
registered on 18.6.2021, on the basis of an incident that happened
on 14.6.2021 which was registered alleging offence under Sections
363, 294(b), 324, 395 and 120 B of IPC.
2. The substance of the allegation is that the 1 st accused
wanted to marry one person by name Gowtham Krishna. As he had
turned down the proposal, the 1st accused had allegedly given a
quotation to accused Nos. 2 to 7 and on that basis the accused Nos.2
to 7 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched among them,
kidnapped the defacto complainant from Chathannur junction and
taken him to Elakaman Kayalpuram and also made the said Gowtham
Krishna reach there. Later, both Gowtham Krishna and the defacto
complainant were threatened, manhandled, the mobile phones were
forcibly taken from them and also caused them injuries. The crime
was registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto
complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been arrested and released on bail;
the names of the petitioners have been incorporated without any basis;
they have not associated in the said alleged commission of the crime.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioners had actually participated in the commission of the crime. In
the nature of the allegations, their custodial interrogation is necessary.
5. True that accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and released on
bail. But the sequence of events in the crime and the roles allegedly
played by the petitioners do not impel this Court to grant them
anticipatory bail. It is alleged that they had actually participated in the
crime. They were also instrumental in forcibly taking the defacto
complainant from Chathannur junction and also taking the other
person to Elakaman; they had also participated in threatening and
manhandling the defacto complainant and the said Gowtham Krishna.
It is specifically stated by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the
mobile phones allegedly snatched from the defacto complainant and
another have to be recovered for which custodial interrogation is
necessary. On these considerations, these applications for anticipatory
bail cannot be entertained.
At this stage, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners
want to surrender; they are at liberty to surrender and in that case, the
Investigating Officer shall take up the proceedings with utmost
expedition.
In the result, these applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
ska
