Kerala High Court
Ajeesh vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6687 OF 2021
CRIME NO.415/2021 OF Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 934/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/18TH ACCUSED:
AJEESH, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN, PICHANKODE VEEDU, PICHANKODE,
ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
K.K.VIJAYAN
G.RANJU MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SR.PP SRI MANU P.G.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.6687/2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021
The petitioner, who is the 18th accused in Crime No.415 of
2021 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
District registered for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 465, 392, 395, 412 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code has
moved this application for his release on bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.08.2021.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
The defacto complainant is a business man engaged with
sale of gold ornaments. He is running a jewelry shop for the last
29 years at Neyyattinkara. On 09.04.2021 at about 8 p.m., he
along with his driver and brother-in-law were proceeding through
the National Highway in his car bearing Registration No.KL-01-
CF-5781 with 830 gms. 630 mgs. of gold ornaments to supply
to some jewelry shops, as he is engaged with the business of
B.A.6687/2021
gold by purchasing the same from wholesale dealers and then
selling to jewelry shop owners for small profit. On that
particular day, he had purchased the gold from one Senthil, who
is running a shop near Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram
and proceeded to Attingal to hand over the same to the jewelry
shop in Attingal. The jewelry was kept under the seat of the car.
They started at 8'o clock. While they were proceeding, an Ertiga
car and another car chased the car of the defacto complainant
and with the Ertiga car, they were intercepted all on a sudden.
Immediately, six persons got down from the Ertiga car and with
the weapons they have broken the side glass of the vehicle of
the defacto complainant and abused him. They have also
sprinkled pepper powder towards the face of the defacto
complainant as well as his brother-in-law and driver and
attacked them with deadly weapons. When he resisted, he was
hacked with a chopper causing severe injuries. Thereafter, the
persons who followed him in the Maruthi swift car had taken the
gold ornaments from his car and forcefully took his brother-in-
law and as well his driver in that car. On hearing the hue and
B.A.6687/2021
cry, some youngsters who were passing in motor bikes rushed to
the scene and on seeing them, the accused fled away from the
scene in their cars. Gold worth Rs.36 Lakhs were robbed by the
accused and thereby the accused had committed the aforesaid
offences.
4. The petitioner has a case that he has absolutely no role
in the alleged incident. He was not at the place of the incident,
but he is undergoing unnecessary incarceration since the date of
his arrest and therefore, this application.
5. This argument is refuted by the learned Public
Prosecutor contending that this petitioner is an employee of the
defacto complainant. He had given information to the gang
leaders including the other accused about the exact time when
the defacto complainant has left his shop with the gold
ornaments. Only on getting information from him, the accused
have blocked the car and restrained the defacto complainant and
his brother-in-law and committed robbery of the gold ornaments.
So, he is having active participation in committing the alleged
B.A.6687/2021
offences. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor
that though 835 gms. and 630 mgs. of gold ornaments were
robbed by the accused, only 300 grms have been recovered.
The balance is yet to be recovered. Moreover, all the accused
have not been apprehended and now the investigation is
halfway. Hence, granting of bail to this petitioner is vehemently
opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the FIR as
well as the FIS, the complicity of the petitioner in committing the
offence is prima facie revealed. The FIS and the FIR would
indicate that the accused persons got information from this
petitioner who is an employee of the defacto complainant in his
jewelry. The FIR prima facie indicates that he along with the
other accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy and pursuant to
the same, the other accused armed with weapons wrongfully
restrained him in the public road and robbed the gold ornaments
after inflicting fatal injuries on him. The sequence of events
indicate that the plot was with the active connivance of this
B.A.6687/2021
petitioner. Hence, I find it difficult to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific overt act is
alleged against this petitioner. If the petitioner is released
before completion of the investigation, that will definitely affect
the prosecution case adversely. Moreover, recovery of the entire
gold ornaments robbed by the accused has not been effected.
All the accused persons have not been arrested. The danger of
the petitioner absconding and witnesses being influenced, if
released on bail, also cannot be ruled out. So, I find no
justification to grant bail to this petitioner as it is clear that if he
is released now, that would turn detrimental to the smooth flow
of investigation. Such being the case, I am not inclined to
release him on bail as requested by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
sb
