Shanavas vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18580 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 6692 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. 6692 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1721/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO.1459/2021 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST)
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED

            SHANAVAS
            AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O.SIYAMU, KEKKEYIL HOUSE, VELLAYIKODUKARA,
            PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., PERUVANNA VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE
            TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
            BY ADV BABY THOMAS


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 037.


            SMT. SREEJA.V- 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. 6692 OF 2021           2




                                ORDER

Application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1459 of 2021 of

Aluva East Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. He has been in custody since 29.7.2021.

4. The prosecution allegation is as follows:

The defacto complainant is running a shop by name 'Indian

Trades'. He was dealing with the business of supply of dry fruits to

various retail shops. This petitioner who was working as a driver under

him used to supply dry nuts and fruits in his car. The second accused

who is also an employee used his autorickshaw to supply goods. The

petitioner used to entrust dry fruits to them to transport the same to

various customers. While so, it was revealed that they together had

committed theft of dry fruits worth Rs.70,00,000/- from the godown

and on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant

this crime has been registered against this petitioner as well as the

second accused.

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

Public Prosecutor.

6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that though he was working as a driver attached to the business

concern of the defacto complainant he too was running the very same

business. So the defacto complainant was having business rivalry

towards him and on one fine morning he along with some others came

to his residence and assaulted him and his wife. The said incident was

on 15.07.2021 and so his wife lodged a complaint against the defacto

complainant and his men. So also he lodged a complaint before the

Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, Aluva for having taken a

signed cheque and other documents from his possession. But the police

has not investigated his complaint. But he has been falsely implicated in

the case under the influence of the defacto complainant. He has been

undergoing incarceration on the baseless complaint lodged by the

defacto complainant and hence, this application.

7. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has

been refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor mainly pointing out that

though it is alleged that he along with his wife had submitted two

complaints before the police officials, no receipts have been produced

by them to substantiate his argument.

8. So according to the learned Public Prosecutor the production of

the documents relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are

created only for the purpose so as to appear that he is innocent and the

case has been falsely foisted. It is also pointed out by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the second accused who is also involved in the alleged

incident is yet to be arrested and the vehicle used by him to supply the

articles have not been recovered so far. It is also submitted that the

investigation of the case is only in progress.

9. True that the second accused has not been arrested so far and

recovery of the entire stolen articles have not been effected by the

investigating agency. But the materials placed before me would show

that this petitioner was transporting the articles in his car and the car

had already been recovered by the investigating agency. This petitioner

is undergoing incarceration for more than 40 days. He is also not having

any criminal antecedents.

Considering all these facts, I think that further detention of this

petitioner may not be required for the investigating agency to proceed

with the investigation of the case which is already well in full swing.

Hence, this petition is allowed 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 on first Mondays of every month for a period of two months from today or till filing of the filing report whichever is earlier.

(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