Kerala High Court
Satheesh vs The State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 10002 OF 2021
CRIME NO.461/2021 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 2941/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
MANOJ
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.ARUMUGAN, DURGA COLONY, THIRUNELLAY, PALAKKAD - 678
006.
BY ADVS.
RAVI.K. (PARIYARATH)
A.V.RAVI
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE
STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..10018/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.10002/2021 & conn.case 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 10018 OF 2021
CRIME NO.461/2021 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2554/2021 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
SATHEESH
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.CHINNAPPAN, DURGA COLONY, THIRUNELLAY,
PALAKKAD - 678 006.
BY ADVS.
K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
A.V.RAVI
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE
STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
SMT. SEETHA.S. (SR.P.P.)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..10002/2021, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.10002/2021 & conn.case 3
ORDER
[Bail Appl. Nos.10002/2021, 10018/2021]
These are applications for regular bail.
2. The petitioners in these cases are the accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime
No.461/2021 of Kottayi Police Station, Palakkad District alleging commission of
offences under Sections 397, 212 and 12(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with the
other accused intercepted the de facto complainant while he was travelling in his
Alto Car and, after placing the knife on the neck of the driver of the vehicle, an
amount of Rs.10,92,500/-which was kept in the back seat of the car by the
de facto complainant was stolen. The 1st accused in the case is the driver of the
car of the de facto complainant. The petitioners are the persons, who are alleged
to have blocked the car enabling the 2 nd accused to threaten the de facto
complaint and also enabling the 3rd accused to take away the money from the
back seat of the car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are absolutely innocent in the matter and have been falsely implicated in the
case. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to block the car of the
de facto complainant or to help any of other accused to take away any money
from the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in
custody from 4.12.2021 and their continued detention is not necessary for the
purposes of any investigation.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is
pointed out that each accused in the case had a clear role in the robbery of the
amount from the de facto complainant. It is submitted that all the accused in the
case including the petitioners in these cases have criminal antecedents and at
least four cases are registered against the petitioners in these cases. It is
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the fact that the petitioners have been in custody for 72 days as on
date and also considering the fact that their continued detention may not be
necessary for the purposes of any investigation, as a final report has already been
filed in the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted bail
subject to strict conditions.
8. In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the
petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating officer in
Crime No.461/2021 of Kottayi Police Station, as and when called upon to
do so;
(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or to
influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.461/2021 of Kottayi
Police Station ;
(iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in
Crime No.461/2021 of Kottayi Police Station, may file an application before the
jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
