Shamer vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18991 Ker

B.A.No.6801 of 2021                    1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
     FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6801 OF 2021
      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 3673/2021 OF JUDICIAL
          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
      (CRIME NO.805 OF 2021 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAP
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2

      1       SHAMER
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O.SIRAJUDHEEN, SHARMAR MANZIL, DESATHINAKAM MURI,
              KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE.
      2       SHAFEEK
              AGED 21 YEARS
              S/O.ABDUL SHUKKOOR, SHEFEEK MANZIL, CHERAVALLI MURI,
              KAYAMKULAM.
             BY ADV M.R.SASITH


RESPONDENT/STATE

             STATE OF KERALA
             REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM 682 031

OTHER PRESENT:

              MANU.P.G- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



      THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.6801 of 2021                 2

                                 ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.805 of

2021 of Kayamkulam Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 457, 380, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners during the

intervening days from 27.3.2021 and 28.7.2021 with the common

intention to commit theft had trespassed into a furniture godown by

name 'Olive Furniture Shop' by using a forged key which was made by

them and committed theft of furnitures worth Rs.35 lakhs and sold it to

various persons with the connivance of accused No.3 and thereby

committed the aforesaid offences.

3. They are in custody since 11.8.20.21.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the

learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they

are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. Moreover

they are in custody for about one month. Hence, the application.

6. This application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor contending that though articles worth Rs.35 lakhs had been

lost in the theft committed by these petitioners all the items have not

been recovered. So if these petitioners are released on bail at this

stage, they will definitely tamper with the evidence by influencing the

witnesses who had purchased the stolen articles from these

petitioners.

7. It is true that they are in custody for the last one month. But

the offences alleged against them are grave and serious in nature. The

entire stolen articles have not been recovered by the investigating

agency. The nature of the accusations levelled against these petitioners

would show that they require some more time to complete the

investigation. As various items have been stolen by these petitioners

definitely the investigating agency has to gather the information by

taking a detailed probe.

Such being the state of affairs though these petitioners are

having no criminal antecedents and first offenders, I am not inclined to

release them on bail at this stage. Hence, the request for regular

bail is rejected and this petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE smm