Dismissed

Jiji Philip v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC19 Jul 2021Bail Appl./4159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by two accused persons charged with theft and mischief of optical fibre cables. The court rejected arguments based on business rivalry and held that recovery of stolen items was not complete. The offence was deemed serious due to the impact on public online education.

What did the court decide?

The application for bail was dismissed.

Jiji Philip Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4159 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.569/2021 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 4:

¶8

1 JIJI PHILIP AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

S/O.LATE T.D.PHILIPOSE, THONDALIL - GRACE VILLA, EZHUMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT691 556.

¶10

2 ANOOP AGED 18 YEARS

¶11

S/O.GEORGE VARGHESE, AVARUVELI PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHUMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 556.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

JOHNSON MANAYANI JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶15

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 555.

¶16

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR.PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON 19.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.4159/2021

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 and 4 in crime No.569/2021 of Adoor police station, which was registered alleging offence under Section 379 r/w Section 34 IPC, besides under Section 3(1) of of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, the PDPP Act).

¶24

I heard counsel on both sides.

¶25

Petitioners were arrested for the case on 26.06.2021 and since

¶26

then are in judicial custody.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner, who is the second accused, is the elder brother of a cable TV operator, who is the licencee; the crime has been registered under the undue influence of a rival cable TV operator who is the benami of one Subramaniyan, Engineer of the BSNL. Referring to Annexure-II communication dated 06.05.2021, the learned counsel pointed out that the

¶28

optical fibre cable which was allegedly stolen belongs to one Rahul Krishnan, so that, according to the learned counsel, the contention that State had suffered loss cannot be appreciated. According to the learned counsel, due to

¶29

B.A. No.4159/2021

¶30

¶31

mistakes, if any on the part of the younger brother, the elder brother and a staff member have been arrested and that they had nothing to do with the alleged commission of the crime. The crime is the result of business rivalry.

¶32

These arguments are denied by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to her, the optical fibre cable and other fittings belong to the BSNL, the said rival operator is only a franchisee of the BSNL. Consequent to the large scale cutting and removal of those cables, irreparable damage has been caused to the BSNL. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that due to the pandemic situation, online education is in progress and since cable and other fittings were cut and removed dishonestly by the accused, online education in the area has come to a halt causing hardships to the general public.

¶33

The case diary also has been made available for perusal. It has come out that, may be due to business rivalry between two cable TV operators, optical fibre cables and other fittings were cut and removed in a large scale between 17.04.2021 and 13.06.2021. The details of the mischiefs committed by the miscreants can be seen from the case diary. Prosecution has arrayed petitioners and two others in the crime. The petitioners were arrested

¶34

B.A. No.4159/2021

¶35

¶36

on 26.06.2021. It is also evident from the report dated 05.07.2021 of the Investigating Officer that though accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested, the stolen items could not yet be retrieved. Vehicles used by the accused for committing the crime and for removing the cables, also remain to be traced.

¶37

There are also reasons to think that the stolen articles belong to the BSNL. Estimated value of the items is Rs.40 lakhs, approximately. Cables were cut and removed from numerous points, causing extensive damage to the network. It is specifically reported that the mischief committed by the accused has resulted in obstruction to the online education of the children in the area. Similarly the other accused, Nos.1 and 3 could not yet be arrested.

¶38

Having regard to the gravity of the offence and also since the stolen articles and the vehicles used are not yet recovered, I do not think that it is advisable to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. The application is

dismissed.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL JUDGE

okb/15.7

//True copy// P.S. to Judge

Jiji Philip v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiji Philip v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Francis Salas Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan P Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer T Vs State of Kerala

Nitin Pushpan Vs State of Kerala Represnted by SHO Thodupuzha Police Station Idukki District

Shafeek Vs State of Kerala

Joji Vs State of Kerala