The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners in a kidnapping and robbery case. Bail was denied to the third petitioner who failed to comply with a prior order to appear before the investigating officer.
Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 1, 2, and 4 subject to conditions; application dismissed for petitioner 3.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 368 of 2010() ---------------------------------CRMP.55/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.15/2010 0F KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1TO4 :
-------------------------------------------
1. JYOTHISH, S/O.MURALI, AGED 32 YEARS, VELLULAZHIKATHU VEEDU,MYLODE PO, POOYAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. SUNIL S/O.RAGHU, AGED 38 YEARS, PADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, MYLODE PO, POOYAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3. VILSON, S/O.JOY AGED 37, KARAVILA SHANVILA, KARICKAL, KARIMPINPUZHA PO, KOLLAM.
4. ABDUL KHAREEM, S/O.ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 42, SHIBU MANZIL, KILIYOOR, AMBALAMKUNNU, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
BY SRI.M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
B.A. No. 368 of 2010
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
24.02.2010, the following order was passed:
“ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 15/2010 of Kottarakara Police Station, Kollam District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 392 and 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2009, the de facto complainant was abducted by the accused, took him in a car to various places and he was hit with hitting block and other weapons. The first accused is the son-in-law of the de facto complainant. The first accused is a lawyer. It is stated that he is blind. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the friends of accused No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 25.12.2009, the de facto complainant was found in a compromising position with a lady in the
B.A. No. 368 of 2010 2
E.S.I. Dispensary. The people of the locality caught hold of the de facto complainant and he was manhandled by them. It is submitted that the case is foisted against the petitioners in order to escape from the other incidents and also to wreak vengeance on the petitioners on account of the previous rivalry.
5. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 4th and 5th March, 2010.
Post on 11.03.2010.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.15/2010 of Kottarakara Police Station, Kollam District.
The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.
Hand over copy to both sides.”
B.A. No. 368 of 2010 3
3. Since the third petitioner did not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 24.02.2010, I am of the view that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third petitioner is employed abroad. Therefore, he cannot have any apprehension that he would be arrested in the State of Kerala, on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence. Therefore, the Bail Application is liable to be dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner(third accused).
B.A. No. 368 of 2010 4
station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
The Bail Application is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 and it is dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners 1, 2, and 4 who complied with previous directives but not to petitioner 3 who refused to appear.
Whether the third petitioner is entitled to relief when he failed to comply with the direction to appear before the investigating officer and is employed abroad.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyothish
Sunil
Vilson
Abdul Khareem
State of Kerala
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
