Dismissed

Renjith @Kadavi Renjith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2020Bail Appl./3396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application under consideration of the petitioner's failure to appear, violation of bail conditions by getting involved in another crime, extensive criminal history, and likelihood of fleeing or influencing witnesses.

What the court decided

AI extract

Renjith @Kadavi Renjith Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 440/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 2/2020 OF JUDICIA L MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 9156/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

CRIME NO.1969/2016 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

RENJITH @KADAVI RENJITH AGED 34 YEARS S/O. RAVI, KADAVIL HOUSE, MATTAMPURAM, POPOLAKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶12

BY RENJITH @KADAVI RENJITH(PARTY IN PERSON)

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶23

B.A. No.3396 of 2020

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2020

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioner herein seeks grant of regular bail in regard to his involvement as accused No.3 in the instant crime No.1969/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station.

¶28

Earlier, the counsel for the petitioner was heard and the case was then adjourned as the learned Prosecutor had submitted that a report is to be obtained from the Sessions court, Thrissur as to the present stage of the case and as to the time that may be required etc. and this Court had then ordered that the sessions court, Thrissur will furnish a report to the Registry of this Court regarding the present stage of the case and as to the time that may be required for completing the steps for framing of charges by the Sessions court, if not already framed and for the completion of the trial, taking into consideration the over all workload of the said court and other factors.

¶29

Later, when the case was taken up on 8.10.2020, none had appeared for the petitioner and the case was adjourned. Subsequently, when the case had come up for consideration on 13.10.2020, Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

¶30

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

submitted that as instructed by the petitioner he has already relinquished the vakalath in this case and return back the case file to the petitioner, who proposes to engage any of the lawyer of his choice and that this Court may delete the name of the present counsel for the petitioner and may adjourn the case to enable the petitioner to make arrangements in this case, if he so desires. Accordingly, this Court had directed that the name of the counsel for the petitioner be removed from the cause list and the case was adjourned to 27.10.2020.

¶33

When the case came up for consideration on 27.10.2020, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court had adjourned the case to 5.11.2020 to ascertain whether the petitioner would enter appearance through his counsel, in the meanwhile. When the case was taken up on 5.11.2020, it was noted that no counsel has appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, this Court thought it fit that one more opportunity could be given to the petitioner/accused who is under remand , to engage a counsel of his choice as earlier submitted on his behalf through his previous counsel, who had relinquished appearance. Accordingly, this Court on 5.11.2020 had directed that the case be listed on 10.11.2020. When the case had come up for consideration on 10.11.2020, the petitioner had not entered appearance through counsel and this Court then again thought it fit that the case be adjourned as last chance to enable the petitioner to enter appearance through his counsel in the meanwhile and

¶34

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

accordingly, the case was adjourned to 11.11.2020. The case was taken up on 11.11.2020, on which day also, no counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Court again thought it fit that one more last opportunity could be given to the petitioner, who is on remand to make arrangements to enter appearance through his counsel as submitted through his previous counsel, who had relinquished appearance on account of the instructions of the petitioner. Accordingly on 11.11.2020, this case was adjourned to 12.11.2020. Today also (12.11.2020), when the case has been taken up for consideration, no counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Since, this Court has liberally granted adjournments one after the other in view of the earlier submission made by the previous counsel for the petitioner, who has been instructed to relinquish appearance and that the case be adjourned to enable the petitioner/accused, who is on remand to engage any counsel of his choice. Since, so many chances have been given to the petitioner to enter appearance through counsel, there is no necessity to adjourn the case any longer.

¶37

The previous regular bail application filed by the petitioner/accused in the very same case has already been rejected by this Court as per a detailed order dated 20.12.2019 in B.A.No.9156/2019 (produced as Annexure-A2 herein).

¶38

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the

¶39

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

instant Crime No.1969/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 3(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Secs. 308, 294(b), 506(i) and Sec.120B r/w 34 of the IPC. Earlier, as per order dated 15.12.2016, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate court concerned has granted statutory default bail to the petitioner/accused in this case as the final report could not be filed after completion of the investigation within the statutory default period of 90 days from the day of remand of the petitioner/accused in this case, in terms of the mandatory provisions contained in proviso to Sec.167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, while granting default bail to the petitioner, had incorporated conditions to regulate the grant of bail and one of the conditions thereto was that the petitioner/accused shall not involve in similar offences during the bail period.

¶42

It is beyond any dispute that the petitioner had subsequently got involved as an accused in Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station, Thrissur district for offences punishable under Secs. 308, 120B of the IPC and Secs. 3(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In view of the blatant violation of the default bail conditions, the learned Magistrate had passed order dated 12.4.2019 (copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A1 in this case), after hearing both sides, cancelling the aforesaid statutory default bail granted to the petitioner on account of the violation of the bail conditions thereto. Consequently, the petitioner/accused was then

¶43

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

remanded to judicial custody again on 26.4.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the abovesaid Annexure-A2 bail application No.9156/2019 before this Court, seeking grant of regular bail in this case.

¶46

This Court, after detailed consideration of the submissions of the petitioner as well as the prosecution agency, had passed a considered order on 20.12.2019, rejecting the plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail for reasons stated therein. The copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-A2 in this application. Now, the petitioner has filed this application seeking the plea for grant of regular bail in the same case.

¶47

As directed by this Court, I Additional Asst. Sessions Court, Thrissur, has furnished a report to the Registry of this Court on 01.10.2020. The said report discloses that the final report in this case was filed by the investigating agency, after completing the necessary formalities including obtaining statutory sanction from the District Collector as per the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, has completed the investigation, and on completion of the investigation has filed the final report/charge sheet in this case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, who had then initiated the committal proceedings as C.P. No.20/2020, as the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions court. As per the final report, there are 12 accused persons. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, concerned on 28.05.2020. While committing the case to the Sessions court concerned, since accused 5 and

¶48

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

11 are absconding, the case against them was split up and the case as against accused 1 to 4, 6 to 10 & 12 alone was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court, concerned. After committal of the above case, the same was made over by the principal Sessions court to the I Addl.Asst.Sessions Court, Thrissur, wherein the cases now numbered as Sessions Case S.C. No.440/2020 and the report dated 01.10.2020 of the said Sessions Court indicates that service of summons from the accused persons concerned, who are on bail are not completed and they have not appeared. Further that, due to COVID-19 pandemic issues, the said court is not able to immediately procure the presence of the witnesses on account of containment zones and that most of the police officials, through whom processes are issued for service, are engaged on COVID-19 duty and the serving of process by the court is, thus, getting delayed. Accordingly, the I Addl. Asst. Sessions Court has apprised that a time limit of 6 months may be granted for filing of the charges and also for completion of the trial in the aforematter, etc.

¶51

The gist of the prosecution case in the instant Crime No.1969/2016 of the Thrissur West Police Station which has now led to the pendency of the sessions case SC No.440/2020 on the file of the I Addl. Asst.Sessions Court, Thrissur is as follows.

¶52

That the complainant in the said case one Sri.Tijoy has alleged that two identifiable persons had come to his house in a motor cycle and

¶53

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020 8

¶54

had threatened him that they would kill him and had thrown a country made bomb towards the said defacto complainant/first informant with the intention to kill him, while he was standing among his family members in front of his house. The country made bomb thrown towards Tijoy had exploded by hitting on the compound wall and if it had not hit the compound wall, then Tijoy and his family members would have been killed in the explosion.

¶55

The learned Prosecutor has apprised this Court that during the course of the investigation, it has been revealed that the accused persons had come to the house of the Tijoy and had thrown the country made bomb, where one Nelson and Neymor and that they are the close associates of known goondas Sri.Ranjith @ Kadvi Ranjith (the petitioner herein) and one of his companion, Geo @ Karamboos, who had demanded that Rs.10,000/- should be paid by Tijoy’s brother, one Sri.Tinroy for conducting the case of Karamboos in the court. Thereupon, Tinroy and Tijoy had refused to accede to the illegal demand to give the Goonda money. On account of the said refusal, the accused persons had assembled in a vacant place at Peringavu under the gang leadership of the petitioner herein, who has subsequently arrayed as A3 and they had entered into criminal conspiracy to kill Tijoy.

¶56

Further case of the prosecution is that the investigation has revealed that one Saifudeen and Ramu, who are engaged in fishing at

¶57

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶58

¶59

Peringavu river had found the accused persons, including the petitioner assembled at a bamboo forest located at Peringavu river, where they had entered into a criminal conspiracy for attacking Sri.Tijoy and a police personnel named Manoj, working at Viyyur Police Station.

¶60

The statements of those witnesses given at the course of the investigation would reveal that they had heard the plan and discussion of these accused persons, including the petitioner to finish Tijoy and Manoj. Apart from that, the statements of Saifudeen and Ramu were recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and those witnesses had recited the same version given by them in the earlier Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement given to the Police. Further, it was also disclosed that one Manosh had handed over his motor cycle on the very same day of the incident to A1, as told by them that they need the abovesaid motor cycle in question for an urgent matter and Manosh had heard the sound of the explosion, when the country bomb was thrown towards the complainant and his family using his motor cycle as conveyance for the commission of the offence by the accused persons. Further that, the statements of all the accused persons recorded by the investigating agency in the course of the investigation including that of the petitioner herein (A3) would confirm the involvement of A3, Renjith in the conspiracy of the case, it is urged by the prosecution.

¶61

Further, it is pointed out by the learned Prosecutor that the

¶62

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶63

¶64

remnants of the explosives were collected by the scientific assistant and produced before the Court and the same was forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur for examination and the examination result was received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, KEPA on 20.09.2019. These details are dealt with in the detailed statement dated 29.9.2020 filed on behalf of the investigating officer through the learned Prosecutor. On the basis of the abovesaid material, the prosecution would urge that the involvement of the petitioner herein in the criminal conspiracy carried out for their heinous plan to kill Tijoy by using country made bombs was thus fully proved in the course of the investigation. Further that, on analyzing the report, the presence of the Potassium Chloride, Sulphur and Aluminium were detected in the material objects. That the investigation has been duly completed and the statutory sanction of the District Collector concerned for prosecution of the offence under the Explosive Substances Act was also duly obtained and thereafter, the investigating agency has duly filed the final report by way of charge sheet on 31.12.2019 before the competent criminal court concerned. The investigating officer had to wait so as to obtain the RFSL report as it is a crucial and important piece of evidence in the case. Earlier, since the investigating agency could not complete the investigation so as to file the final report before the expiry of the default bail period, as mandated in Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner had then sought for bail and the learned

¶65

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶66

¶67

Magistrate had granted default bail to the petitioner as per order dated 15.12.2016 in respect of his involvement as accused No.3 in the instant Crime No.1969/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station. One of the conditions stipulated in the said default bail order was that the petitioner should not get himself involved in any case, while he is on bail, especially offence of similar nature. Later, it appears that the petitioner again got himself involved as an accused in Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station for offences punishable under Secs. 308, 120B of the IPC and Secs.3(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶68

Hence, the investigating agency filed a report before the learned Magistrate seeking cancellation of the default bail granted to the petitioner in the present case on account of his having blatantly violated the terms and conditions of the said bail order by getting himself involved in the latter case.

¶69

After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate had passed order dated 12.4.2019 cancelling the bail granted to him earlier in this case and the petitioner was thereafter arrested on 26.4.2019 and remanded since then. On a previous occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court for granting regular bail to him in this case and this Court as per Annexure-A2 order dated 20.12.2019 in BA No.9156/2019 filed by the petitioner herein has rejected the said plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail for the detailed reasons stated therein.

¶70

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶71

¶72

Now, the plea of the petitioner is that he has been under incarceration in this case for a very long time both during the initial period of remand before the grant of default bail and also after he was remanded consequent to the cancellation of the default bail and that the trial may be prolonged indefinitely on account of the Covid-19 pandemic issues and that the incarceration of the petitioner is no longer necessary or justified and that the allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless and that the liberty of the petitioner may not be curtailed and that this Court may grant him regular bail etc.

¶73

The learned Prosecutor has taken this Court’s attention to para No.9 of the statement dated 29.9.2020 filed by the investigating agency in this case, wherein the details of about 44 cases in which the petitioner has been involved as an accused has been narrated. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court on the previous occasion while rendering Annexure-A2 order dated 20.12.2019 and para No.6 of Annexure-A2 order gives reference to the details in that regard. It is to be noted that one such case is for the offence as per Sec.302 of the IPC. Further, it appears that the petitioner has been involved as accused for offence as per the Explosive Substances Act not only in this case, but in 4 cases including the aforementioned FIR registered at Ollur Police Station, pursuant to which the default bail granted to the petitioner in this case was cancelled by the learned Magistrate.

¶74

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶75

¶76

The petitioner has made a submission that the aforementioned latter case Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station was subsequently registered only on the basis of the false allegations to ensure that the default bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled at the instance of the Police and that the petitioner is a disabled person and that the allegations are per se false and incorrect etc. In that regard, the learned Prosecutor has taken this Court’s attention to the various details given in the aforesaid statement dated 29.9.2020 filed by the investigating agency, wherein detailed reference has been made relating to the factual aspects in relation to the said Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station.

¶77

Further that, the investigation in Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station has disclosed from the statement of the accused-Arun@ Kadu that he and the petitioner (Renjith) had conversion while they are earlier residing at Kannur Jail and had entered into a conspiracy to take revenge against Kiran, who had killed Renjith’s close associate, one Alphy. Further that, Alphy was intimate follower of Renjith, who used to carry out primary needs of the petitioner herein as he had lost his two hands in a bomb blast. That after their release from jail, both of them had later met together and proceeded to give effect to the plan to kill Kiran.

¶78

The detailed aspects of the matter has been dealt with in the abovesaid statement dated 29.9.2020 filed by the investigating agency in this case. On the basis of the said statement, the prosecution would point

¶79

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶80

¶81

out that it is not as if the petitioner’s hands were lost in a road accident or while engaging in a labour work, but that it has happened in a bomb blast that occurred at the time when he was manufacturing bombs with his associates for the purpose of using against his rival gang and in that connection, crime has been registered as Crime No.253/2006 of Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 440 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC and Secs. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. That the abovesaid physical disability has not dissuaded the petitioner from indulging in anti-social and criminal activities as can be seen from the details in regard to his involvement in various cases. The said statement has also disclosed that the petitioner has overcome the said disability by using two iron gloves which can be fixed on his elbow for attacking the victims. The investigating officer has stated in the abovesaid statement that on account of the frightening crime history of the petitioner, most of the witnesses were scared to tell the truth. Accordingly, on the basis of the abovesaid details in the said statement, the Prosecutor would point out that the grant of bail to the petitioner would have very serious consequences and that in all likelihood, the petitioner would commit other crimes and will also take steps and will also intimidate and influence the witnesses in this case, which is totally against the interest of ends of justice.

¶82

After going through the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations disclosed against the

¶83

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶84

¶85

petitioner in the instant case are very serious. Even after securing default bail in this case with various conditions, including the condition that the petitioner shall not get himself involved in any offences, especially that of similar offences, the petitioner has got himself involved as an accused in the abovesaid crime registered at Ollur Police Station. The offences disclosed in the present case as well as in the subsequent case registered at Ollur Police Station are similar offences, like Sec.308 IPC and the offences as per the Explosive Substances Act.

¶86

Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is constrained to take the view that it will be extremely hazardous to grant bail to the petitioner in this case as there is a strong likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses and also in committing other crimes. The statement filed by the investigating agency discloses that he is goonda gang leader, who has involved in very many cases. About 44 cases are mentioned in para No.9 of the abovesaid statement dated 29.9.2020 filed by the investigating agency in this case. For all these reasons, this Court is not in a position to accede to the plea of the petitioner that he should be granted regular bail etc. Further, it has also been noted that the report of the Addl. Asst.Sessions court, Thrissur given on 1.10.2020 to the Registry of this Court would disclose that accused Nos.5 and 11 in this case are absconding and their case has been split up and now, the cases as against A1 to A4, A6 to A10

¶87

Bail Appl..No.3396 OF 2020

¶88

¶89

and A12 alone has been committed to the Sessions court. Further that, he is likely to commit other offence and is likely to be absconded because of his gang connections.

¶90

However, the Sessions court has stated therein that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic issues, that serving of process by the court is getting delayed and that taking into account the pendency of all cases, the time limit of six months may be required for the said court for framing of charges and also for completion of trial. Taking into account the said aspects borne out from the abovesaid report of the Sessions Court concerned, it is ordered that the said court may take all reasonable endeavours possible in this circumstances to ensure that the trial may be completed, without much delay, preferably within the abovesaid time limit suggested by the said court or within any appropriate and reasonable time limit that may be fixed by the said court taking into account, then prevailing situations.

¶91

Hence, the plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in this case will stand rejected and the application will stand accordingly, dismissed.

¶92

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶93

SKS

Renjith @Kadavi Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Renjith @Kadavi Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar.R Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Jacob Vs G.Rajesh

Thankamma Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala

The District Collector Vs George Isaac