Kerala High Court
Stiyo vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
BAIL APPL. NO. 6895 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6895 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 329/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
(CRIME NO.696 OF 2019 OF KAIPPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3
STIYO
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. JOSE, KUTTTIKADAN HOUSE, BALIPARAMBU DESOM,
KAIPPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 681
BY ADVS.
P.S.ANISHAD
P.K.VARGHESE
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
SANJANA RACHEL JOSE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. MANU.P.G- SR.P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6895 OF 2021 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.696 of 2019 of
Kaippamangalam Police Station registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 342, 364, 397, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. This is the fourth application filed by this petitioner for his
release on bail.
3. The prosecution case is that the deceased, the husband of CW2
was the owner of a petrol pump. Every day he used to return to his
house late night with the money collected from his business in the petrol
pump. The petitioner and the first accused who were aware of the said
fact conspired together and with their motive to commit robbery, chased
the defacto complainant who was proceeding in his car at about 1.15
a.m on 15.10.2019. He used to travel to his residence by taking his
vehicle through the service road. These accused persons also followed
him in their motor cycle and when he reached near a curve on the road,
an accident was created by them and the second accused remained on
the road as if he fell down and sustained injuries in the accident. Soon
the deceased came out of the car to know what had happened actually
and at that time these accused persons wrongfully caught hold of him
and assaulted him and even pasted a cello tape on his mouth and
dragged him into the very same car and abducted him to a far away
place and assaulted him. They looted his money and all belongings and
brutally murdered him. Thereby they have committed the aforesaid
offences.
4. Heard both sides.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has been
in custody since 17.10.2019 and hence, this application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that granting of bail to
this petitioner will definitely upset the smooth course of trial of the case
as he will threaten and intimidate the witnesses to the prosecution. Even
Crime No.447 of 2021 of Kaippamangalam police state was registered
against him for having threatened the witnesses to the prosecution to
obstruct and prevent them from deposing the true facts before the trial
court. Now the examination of the witnesses are going on and out of the
86 witnesses, 30 witnesses were examined. So granting of bail at this
stage will adversely affect the trial of the case is the stand taken by the
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Perused the records available before me.
8. This successive bail application is filed by the petitioner raising
the very same contention that he is innocent and he is undergoing
incarceration since 17.10.2019. It is true that he has been languishing in
jail since 17.10.2019. It is most important to note that the investigating
agency has submitted the charge sheet within the stipulated time and
the trial court is proceeding with the trial of the case. As pointed out by
the learned Public Prosecutor out of the 86 witnesses, 30 witnesses were
already examined. Even today, the case is posted for examination of the
witnesses.
9. When the offences alleged against this petitioner are grave,
brutal and serious in nature, I do not think that he deserves to be
released on bail that too in the midway of the trial of the case. If he is
released at this stage, definitely there is every chance to affect
adversely the smooth flow of the trial of the case. Witnesses are
supposed to give evidence before the Court without any fear or threat
from any corner. Moreover, I do not find any valid ground other than
what is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is
languishing in jail since the date of arrest, to release him on bail at this
stage.
9. The gravity of the offences alleged against him and the other
accused are very serious in nature. The possibility to flee from justice
causing obstacles to the trial of the case also cannot be ruled out.
Considering all these facts, I do not find any justification to accept
the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner though the
petitioner is aged only 20 years.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
smm
