Kerala HC dismissed bail application of the kidnapping and dacoity accused who absconded twice. Bail refused due to trial delay caused by his fault, but liberty granted to reapply if split case trial exceeds four months.
Bail petition dismissed; liberty to apply again in split case if trial exceeds four months.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935
Bail Appl..No. 2238 of 2013
[CRIME NO. 40/2003 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHANID .T, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O MOOSA, T.B ROAD, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.PRAVEESH.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SERENA GEORGE.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.
B.A.No.2238 Of 2013
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2013
ORDER
Petitioner is the 1st accused in a sessions case pending on
the file of the Additional Sessions Court (AD HOC)-I, Kasargod. Occurrence involved in the case which gave raise to prosecution of petitioner and co-accused, allegedly, took place on 10.02.2003 at about 7 PM. Accused persons involved in the crime, are allegedly followed the injured in a Maruthi car while he proceeded on a bike towards Kangangadu from Melaparambu with cash of Rs.12,20,000/-. The injured is stated to be a partner of a Jewallary in Kanhangad. Motor bike was knocked down hitting that vehicle with the Maruthi car and, thereafter, after administering chloroform to injured, he was taken in the Maruthi car, robbed of the sum carried by him, and then thrown away from that vehicle, is the case of prosecution. After completing investigation of crime, accused persons, nine in number, were indicted for various penal offences including the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Penal Code. After committal of the case, petitioner (A1) who is alleged to be the 'Kingpin' in the
B.A.No.2238 Of 2013
2
crime after entering appearance before Sessions Court, later, absconded. Order passed by Sessions Judge would disclose that twice proceedings under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure had to be initiated against petitioner and his sureties forfeiting bonds executed by them. The trial against some of the accused, after splitting up the case against petitioner, has ended in their acquittal. Petitioner, later, surrendered in the split up case on 26.02.2013 and he was remanded to Judicial custody. After unsuccessfully moving applications for bail, twice before the Sessions Judge, he has filed the above application seeking his release on bail. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Court for his release on bail and his passport already tendered, is retained by the Court. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that petitioner is likely to be abscond again if he is released.
B.A.No.2238 Of 2013
3
not co-operating for completion of trial against him. Order of learned Sessions Judge shows that twice the bonds executed by him had been flouted warranting proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to order for release of petitioner on bail. However, if trial of the case against him in the split up case, for any reason other than of his fault, is not completed within a period of four months from today, he is granted liberty to move an application afresh before the Sessions Judge for bail. In that event, such application shall be considered on its merits by learned Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders thereof.
Petition is dismissed with the above direction.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who absconded twice and caused delay in trial in a dacoity case.
Whether the petitioner's surrender in a split-up case entitles him to bail in the split case.
Whether conditions for bail can be imposed if the split case trial is not completed within four months.
Shanid .T
The State of Kerala
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
