Kerala High Court
Shamnas S.B vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 7202 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1285/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM
CRIME NO.2056 OF 2021 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED :-
SHAMNAS S.B.
AGED 38 YEARS
SON OF SRI.BASHEER K.P.,
KARUKACHERIL, VELOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686 003.
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 7202 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime
No.2056 of 2021 of Kottayam East Police Station
registered for the offence punishable under Sections
342, 294(b), 323, 387 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on
13.08.2021 at about 01.00 am the defacto complainant
who is a autorickshaw driver was wrongfully restrained
by these petitioners along with the other accused and
showered obscene words towards him and assaulted him.
After putting him under threat they have forcefully
removed him to another place in their vehicle and
manhandled and committed robbery of the amount, which
was in his possession. Thereby, they have committed
the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
BAIL APPL. NO. 7202 OF 2021
raised a plea of false implication and submitted that
this petitioner is only a autorickshaw driver and the
defacto complainant is also an autorickshaw driver.
There were having some issues with regard to some
silly problems in the locality and because of the
difference of opinion he has been falsely implicated
in the case by the defacto complainant. In fact he is
totally innocent and has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. But he apprehends
unnecessary arrest and hence this application.
5. The said submission is refuted by the learned
Public Prosecutor contending that he is a hard core
criminal involved in 8 other crimes of similar nature.
Now the investigation of the case is only in the
initial stage and the other accused have already been
arrested and released on bail.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor, I
could find that the accusation levelled against this
petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The time
of occurrence was 01.00 am. The defacto complainant
BAIL APPL. NO. 7202 OF 2021
being an autorickshaw driver, it appears that he was
engaged with his duty during the night. Then he was
threatened by this petitioner along with other accused
and under coercion, they committed robbery. So, the
seriousness of the accusation and severity of the
offences alleged against this petitioner, would compel
this court to dismiss the application. In this
backdrop, I do not think that, this is a fit and
appropriate case in which the judicial discretion of
this court can be exercised as prayed for. Only in
exceptional cases the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C
can be exercised and that too in a very judicious
manner. This is not a case coming under the said
category.
Accordingly, this bail application stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
SMA
