Kerala High Court
Ratheesh @ Keedayi Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2021
BAIL APPL. NO. 6228 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6228 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 535/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
(CRIME NO.1078 OF 2020 OF PUTHUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
RATHEESH @ KEEDAYI RATHEESH,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KEEDAYI HOUSE, KARAYAMPADAM,
VARANTHARAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.K.SURESH- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6228 OF 2021 2
ORDER
This petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1078 of 2020 of
Puthukkad Police station registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 294 (b) and 302 of the IPC.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2020 and remanded to
judicial custody on 05.08.2020.
3. On 12.01.2020 he was granted statutory bail by Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. While granting statutory bail a condition
was imposed that he should not commit any offence while on bail. After
his release, the bail granted to him was cancelled by the very same court
in C.M.P.No.4555/2020 on the finding that the petitioner has threatened
an eye witness to the prosecution case on 14.12.2020 to the effect that
in the event he depose against him, before the court he would kill him.
Since such a threat was raised against an eye witness in the case
registered against this petitioner in Crime No.1078 of 2020, on the
statement of that eye-witness, Crime no.1382 of 2020 under Sec.341
and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation
was conducted and charge sheet was filed. Now the case is pending as
C.C. No.323/2021 against this petitioner. Thereafter, a petition was
moved for cancellation of bail by the Inspector of police and thus the bail
granted to him was cancelled by the court by an order dated 12.1.2021.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application filed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that the
petitioner has violated the bail condition by putting an eye witness under
threat and now the case is ready for trial and it stands posted to
17.09.2021. Moreover, it is contended that this petitioner is an accused
in five cases registered before the Vadanappally police station and two
cases before Puthukkad polcie station. The details of the case have also
been furnished by the Inspector of Police in the report submitted
opposing this application. From the report it appears that the petitioner
is a habitual offender/history-sheeter and though he was granted bail in
the case, he violated the bail conditions and there was coercive action
from his side and that is why the bail was cancelled by the learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate, by an order dated 12.1.2021.
5. The criminal antecedents of this petitioner is so patent from the
report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The bail which has
already been granted to him was cancelled as he raised dead threats
towards a material witness in the murder case which is scheduled for
trial. So, if the petitioner is released on bail a free and fair trial may not
be possible. The witnesses have to appear before the court and depose
the true facts transpired without any fear or threat from any corner. The
safety of the witness is of-course a great concern of the court. It is well
settled that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner and only if there are supervening circumstances which are not
conducive to a fair trial, such an order can be passed against an
accused. From the materials available before me, it appears that
circumstances are not sufficient to infer that the petitioner can retain his
liberty at least during the trial of the case in which he is facing murder
charge.
In short, it appears that custodial trial is inevitable in this case.
Hence, the application is dismissed. The learned Trial Judge shall take all
endeavor to conduct trial of the case and dispose of the same at the
earliest without any delay, whatsoever.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
Smm
