Manikandan R vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10093 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10093 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2022

Kerala High Court

Manikandan R vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2022

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6330 OF 2022
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1&2:

     1      MANIKANDAN R, AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O. RAJAYYAN, R. M VILLA, KAZHAKAM THITTA, VILAVAN KODU
            VILLAGE, KUZHITHURA, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU,
            PIN - 629163
            , PIN - 629163

     2      BAL RAJ. C, AGED 67 YEARS
            S/O. CHELLAPPAN, SARATH NIVAS, NEAR AREKUNNU CHECKPOST,
            NEYYATTINKARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695125
            , PIN - 695125

            BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD



RESPONDENTS/STATE:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REP BY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
            , PIN - 682031

     2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            DISTRICT-695121, PIN - 695121


OTHER PRESENT:

            PP - SMT, NIMA JACOB


     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No. 6330 of 2022                2


                VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
              -------------------
             B.A. No. 6330 of 2022
       ----------------------------------
   Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022

                                ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime

No.3490 of 2020 of Neyyattinkara Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram District registered alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections

451, 427 and 380 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, on

08.12.2020 at about 10 pm, accused persons in

furtherance of their common intention to destroy or

demolish the shop room bearing No.NMC 11/727 of

Neyyattinkara Municipality, in which the defacto

complainant was running Lakshmi Time Centre, reached

there and demolished the said shop room and they

took away the articles kept inside the shop room and

committed mischief. The prosecution allegation is

that the accused persons committed theft and the

defacto complainant had sustained a total loss of

Rs.23 lakhs and thus committed the above said

offences.

4. The petitioners submit that they have been

falsely implicated in the above said crime and the

1st petitioner is the owner of the shop room and the

said shop room was rented out to the defacto

complainant as per Annexure-2 rent deed. Petitioner

wanted to demolish the said shop room and he has

made a request before the local authority as per

Annexure-3 in this regard and further that on

7.12.2020 the 1st petitioner returned the advance

amount to the defacto complainant as is evident from

Annexure-5. After the receipt of the advance amount

the defacto complainant removed his furnitures which

includes chair, table, etc. from the shop room.

Thereafter, when the petitioners attempted to

demolish the shop room, the same was objected and

the present crime was registered. The case of the

petitioners is that after receiving the deposit

amount and returning the key, a false case have been

foisted against them that they had trespassed into

the shop room and committed theft and mischief by

demolishing the shop room. Thereupon, the

petitioners preferred a complaint before the SHO,

Neyyattinkara regarding the same, as is evident from

Annexure-6.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application for bail mainly contending that the

defacto complainant was running a shop room on rent

and the shop room has demolished by the petitioners

herein.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case, and nature of the allegations,

custodial interrogation may not be required for the

purpose of investigation. Petitioners should fully

co-operate with the investigation I am inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but on

stringent conditions. The above bail application is

allowed with the following directions. The

petitioners shall surrender before the

investigating officer on 22.09.2022 and make

themselves available for interrogation on that day

or on any other day or days as directed by the

investigating officer. In the event of arrest of

the petitioners in Crime No.3490 of 2020 of

Neyyattinkara Police Station, they shall be

produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on

the same day and be released on bail on the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.3490/2020 of Neyyattinkara Police

Station as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever so required;

(iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence;

(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;