Akhiljithu @ Appu vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21507 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 7132 OF 2021            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
   FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 7132 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1137/2021 OF JUDICIAL
  MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
        (CRIME NO.2116 OF 2021 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED

            AKHILJITHU @ APPU
            AGED 34 YEARS
            S/O ANILKUMAR,
            KORANKUZHI VEEDU, KALLUPALAM, KOTTAKAKAM P.O, ARYANAD
            VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
            BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695540.
            BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR     SMT. SREEJA V.

     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 7132 OF 2021             2




                               ORDER

Application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.2116 of 2021

of Aryanad Police Station registered for the offence punishable under

Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. He has been in custody since 13.8.2021.

4. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The defacto complainant had entered into an agreement for sale

of his property with the employer of the 1 st accused. On 12.08.2021

the defacto complainant was invited to the residence of the 2 nd

accused and at 13.15 hrs, he reached there along with the agent who

intervened in the property transaction with a sum of Rs.20 lakhs.

Then the accused persons have intimidated and threatened him with

the intention to rob the money. When he resisted the same, a sword

was placed on his neck by the 2 nd accused to put him under threat

and thus criminally intimidated him and robbed the amount of Rs.20

lakhs along with the documents in his possession with the aid of the

other accused. Thus the accused looted the money and thereby the

case has been registered against all of them.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the

learned Public Prosecutor.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has

not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. But he is

undergoing incarceration since the date of his arrest.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in

fact he had active participation in committing the offence. But it is

admitted that the vehicle involved in this case, the weapon alleged to

have been used by the accused etc. had already been recovered after

arrest of the other accused. But the documents snatched away from

the defacto complainant by putting him under threat and coercion are

yet to be recovered and all those documents are in the possession of

the first accused who is absconding.

8. The records would indicate that this petitioner has no

criminal antecedents. The investigation of the case is well in

progress. The prosecution has no case that this petitioner had taken

away the documents from the possession of the defacto complainant

by putting him under threat. Though there is strong prima case

against this petitioner, the role played by him is less when compared

with others. Therefore, considering the period of detention undergone

by him and the present stage of investigation, I am inclined to

release him on bail subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 /- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing, till filing of the final report.

(iii) The petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE smm