Partly allowed

Anoop @ Suruma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1149/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two regular bail applications filed by accused Nos.7 and 11 involved in a riot and obstruction of police. While Accused No.11 was granted bail due to similarity with other released accused, Accused No.7's bail was denied as he aided the escape of intended targets and had significant criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application No.1394 allowed; Accused No.11 released on bond of Rs.1 lakh with conditions. Bail Application No.1149 dismissed; Accused No.7 denied bail.

Anoop @ Suruma Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1149 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1344/2020 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANOOP @ SURUMA, AGED 22 YEARS, ANCHU BHAVAN , CHADAYARUKKAVILA,MUKKUNADA, NARUVAMOODU DESOM, PALLICAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695528

¶9

BY ADVS. SHRI.ARUN KRISHNA SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1394/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶21

Bail Appl..No.1394 OF 2021

¶22

CRIME NO.1344/2020 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶23

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶24

CHIKKU JAYAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PLAVILA VARUVILA VEEDU, NARUVAMOODU, PALLICHAL DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695020

¶25

BY ADVS. SHRI.ARUN KRISHNA SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.JIJA JAMES MATHEW KANDATHIL

¶26

RESPONDENT:

¶27

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1149/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

Dated this the 09th day of March, 2021

¶34

APPLICATIONS FOR REGULAR BAIL

¶35

The applicant in B.A.No.1149 of 2021 is the 7^th

¶36

accused, while the applicant B.A.No.1394 of 2021 is the 11^th accused in Crime No.1344 of 2020 of Thiruvallam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 225B and 379 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(4) of the PDPP Act, Section 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶37

On 24.12.2020, at about 6.00 PM, when the Police officers from the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, had come to apprehend accused Nos. 7 and 8 in connection with another crime which was registered against them the applicants, together with the other co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly, and in the prosecution of the common object, caused obstruction to their lawful apprehension by the Police officers and also released them from custody. Thereafter, they committing riot

¶38

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

armed with deadly weapons like beer bottles, firecrackers, petrol bomb etc; and also assaulted the Police officers on duty and deterred them from performing their duty as public servants. They also committed theft of a wireless set and caused extensive damage to the official department vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 01 BW 7974, a wireless handset, top light etc., causing a total loss of Rs.5 lakhs to public property. Not only this, the applicants and the other co-accused also had the temerity to record the entire incident on a mobile phone and had widely circulated it among their friends and well-wishers to indicate the pitiable position of the Police officers in the discharge of their duties were put to. The applicants want to establish that they had an upper hand over the Police and that they couldn't be submitted to law and order. Such was the attitude of the applicants. Accused Nos. 7 and 8, who were the persons, who were intended to be apprehended and were also made to sit inside the police jeep before they were released by the other accused. The applicants were arrested on 27.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 respectively and have been in custody for more than two months now. The applicants state that they are innocent, and the allegations against them are not true. It is also stated that they

¶41

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

are not implicated in any Crime at the Fort Police station so as to be apprehended. The applicants pray that their further incarceration may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the applications for bail stating that granting of bail to these accused, who are the main perpetrators of the crime will demoralise the entire Police force. And, moreover, it is also pointed out accused No.7 has three other crimes registered against him, which includes offences under the NDPS Act and an offence for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC. The 11^th accused has got only one more crime registered against him. ie., for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Hence, it is pointed out, that in case, the applicants are released on bail, they would get involved in offences of similar nature and may also intimidate and influence witnesses, who are all from the locality.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

¶46

submits that Accused Nos. 1 and 9 were already granted bail in this crime. And, therefore, the applicants are not differently

¶47

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶48

¶49

placed. And, hence, they too are entitled to be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused Nos.1 and 9 did not have any criminal antecedents whereas, both these applicants have criminal antecedents for attempted murder. And, therefore, the bail may not be granted to them and that their case and has to be differently viewed.

¶50

After having considered the entire submissions made on both sides, I find that accused No. 11 is only involved in one more crime for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, in which he was already granted bail. Accused No.7, was intended to be apprehended by the Police and had escaped from there with the assistance of the other accused. He is involved in three other crimes, for offences under the NDPS Act, and attempted murder. Moreover, a loss of Rs.5 lakhs was sustained to public property. The 11^th accused, therefore, is entitled to be released on bail, since he is almost similarly placed by accused Nos.1 and 9, who were already granted bail. But, the 7^th accused, whom the Police officers had come to apprehend, is definitely not entitled to be released on bail.

¶51

In the result, B.A.No.1149 of 2021 is dismissed, while

¶52

B.A.Nos.1149 & 1394 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

B.A.No.1394 of 2021 is allowed and the 11^th accused is directed

¶55

to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

¶56

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 PM, for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶57

(ii) He shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the jurisdictional court.

¶58

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶59

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

¶60

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶61

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶62

NR/09/03/2021

Anoop @ Suruma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop @ Suruma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Gopan Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Jose Vs State of Kerala

Roy George Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala