Disposed

Amal Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016Crl.MC/1180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition filed to cancel bail of two accusedpersons for committing new offences while on bail. The Court noted that the lower court was already seised of a bail cancellation application filed by the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the bail cancellation application filed by the Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Amal Rajesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1180 of 2016

¶6

-----------------------------------CRIME NO. 184 OF 2014 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

AMAL RAJESH, S/O. AMAL DAS, VADAKARA MINI HOUSE, PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

¶10

SRI.M.RAJESH SMT.RESHMA G.MENON SMT.K.J.JISMA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031.

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 121.

¶15

3. RENJITH @ RATHEESH, S/O. DHARMARAJ, KUZHIVILAMELEPUTHEN VEEDU, THOTTAVARAM, PERUMKADAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 121.

¶16

4. ANIL KUMAR @ BINU, S/O. YESUDASAN, CHEENIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MALAKULANGARA MARAYAMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 121.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶18

SRI.G.BIJU

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 1180 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE 1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION IN BA.NO.5733/2014.

¶25

ANNEXURE 2: THE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.43/2016 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE.

¶26

ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.124/2015 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE. ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.117/2015 OF MARAYAKUTTAM POLICE STATION.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.1180 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

1.This petition is filed by the charge witness No.2 in S.C.No.1329/2015 on the files of the Fast Track Court NoII, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid case originates from Crime No.184/2014 of Marayamuttam police station registered for offence under S.120B, 302, 307, 324, 212 r/w S.34 of the IPC and under S.27 of the Arms Act.

¶37

2.The respondents 4 and 3 are the accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively in the aforesaid case.

¶38

3.As per Annexure 1 order dated 05.08.2014, accused Nos.

¶39

1 to 4 were enlarged on bail by this Court subject to conditions. Condition No.3 of the order required that they should not involve in any criminal offence while they on bail.

¶40

4.The petitioner has filed this application seeking

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.1180 of 2016 : 2 :

¶42

cancellation of bail granted to the respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that they have violated condition No.3 of the order by involving themselves in several other crimes. To make matters worse, those crimes were registered for intimidating and attacking the prosecution witnesses, is the submission of the learned counsel. It is also submitted that to his knowledge, the aforesaid respondents and the other accused are involved in several other crimes and are inveterate criminals.

¶43

5.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

¶44

6.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that an application has already been filed by the investigating officer for cancellation of bail before the learned Magistrate during the committal stage and the same is pending consideration of the Court below.

¶45

7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that those crimes have been registered at the

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1180 of 2016 : 3 :

¶47

instance of the petitioner herein who had influenced the 2^nd respondent to register false crimes against the respondents 3 and 4.

¶48

8.Annexure 1 order would reveal that this Court had

¶49

empowered the Court below to cancel the bail in case of violation of conditions of Annexure 1 order. It is by now settled that if the conduct of the accused person subsequent to his release on bail puts in jeopardy the progress of a fair trial, and if there is no other remedy which can be effectively be used against the accused person, the bail granted can very well be cancelled. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the subsequent crimes were registered when the respondents 3 and 4 had adopted intimidatory tactics against the prosecution witnesses and that they were assaulted in order to prevent them from deposing before the Court at the stage of trial also cannot be taken lightly.

¶50

9.The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.1180 of 2016 : 4 :

¶52

Apex Court in Manjit Prakash and Others v. Shobha Devi and Another (2009 (13) SCC 785) to highlight the principles and circumstances when a bail granted could be

¶53

cancelled:-

¶54

(1) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,

¶55

(2) interferes with the course of investigation,

¶56

(3) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

¶57

(4) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities

¶58

which would hamper smooth investigation,

¶59

(5) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,

¶60

(6) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

¶61

(7) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These conditions were held to be not exhaustive. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that several of these circumstances exists in the instant case.

¶62

Crl.M.C.No.1180 of 2016 : 5 :

¶63

10.I take note of the submission of the learned public prosecutor that learned Sessions Judge is in seisin of the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is felt that necessary directions can be issued to the Court below to take up the matter and to dispose the same in an expeditious manner.

¶64

11.In the result this application is disposed off directing the learned Sessions Judge to take up the application seeking cancellation of Bail filed by the Investigating officer and to dispose off the matter, expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of production of this order.

¶65

The petition is disposed off with the above observations.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶68

¶69

[True copy]

¶70

P.A to Judge

Amal Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamsa Vs Sub Inspector of Police

M.M.Shoukathali Vs State of Kerala

Yesudas Saimon Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Shamsuddin Vs Shoukkath

E.P.Vijayakumari Vs State of Kerala