Kerala High Court
Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3509 OF 2024
CRIME NO.359/2024 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.804
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 RATHEESH
AGED 40 YEARS
SNEHA BHAVAN, EDATHARA, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587
2 AKHIL A.S.
AGED 29 YEARS
SUMATHY BHAVAN, PULIYANCODE, CHEMPARATHI
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587
3 AKHIL S.L.
AGED 28 YEARS
CHUMADU THANGI VILA VEEDU, MARUTAMOOD, AYIROOPARA
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695584
4 AKHIL S.
AGED 28 YEARS
SANGITA BHAVAN, RAMARTHALA IDATHALA, CHEMPAZHANTHI
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587
BY ADV VISHNU S.
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN -SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3509 of 2024
2
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------
B.A.No.3509 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2024
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.359 of
2024 of Pothencode Police Station. They allegedly had
committed the offences punishable under Sections 447,
294(b), 427, 394, 324 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution allegation are the following:
The first accused demanded cigarette from the shop of
the de facto complainant on credit, she refused. Due to that
enmity, he along with accused Nos.2 to 4 reached her house
at 9.30 p.m. on 17.03.2024 and committed mischief. They
have destroyed the flower pots and other utensils. The de
facto complainant was abused and beaten up. The first
accused by placing a knife in her neck, snatched away the
gold chain worn by her which worths Rs.50,000/-. When the
grandson of the de facto complainant intervened, he was
assaulted and inflicted an injury.
4. The petitioners would contend that they did not
involve in the alleged crime and without any material or
evidence, they were implicated in the crime.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that
accused Nos.1 and 2 are the main culprits and they have
involved in several other crimes also. Insofar as accused
Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, their role in the commission of
offence is minimal. They have no criminal antecedents except
one case against the fourth accused which is trivial in nature.
6. Having considered the submissions made across
the Bar and the materials on record, I am of the view that
accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to anticipatory bail,
whereas, accused Nos.3 and 4 can be granted anticipatory
bail subject to conditions.
In the result, the bail applications as that of petitioners
1 and 2 concerned is dismissed and the bail applications as
that of petitioners 3 and 4 are allowed. Petitioners 3 and 4
are directed to surrender before the investigating officer
within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of they
being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the
execution of a bonds for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty
thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on
the following conditions:
(i) They shall not influence or intimidate
witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) They shall appear before the
investigating officer as and when called
for; and
(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get
involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before
the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
Mn
