Allowed

Akhil @ Valiyamon, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2022Bail Appl./433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by the second accused in a dacoity/robbery case alleging offences under the IPC. The Court found the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and served no role in the alleged commission of offences.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail subject to execution of a bond with two sureties and reporting to the Investigating Officer every Saturday. He shall not interfere with witnesses or commit further c

Akhil @ Valiyamon, Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 433 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2:

¶8

AKHIL @ VALIYAMON, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.LATE N.K.SIVAPRASAD, NELLIMUKAL PADINJATTATHIL, KARUVATTA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 005.

¶9

BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN R.RAJESH (VARKALA) T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN V.M.VISHNU MOHAN HARSHA SUSAN SAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV ASHI-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.433/2022

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 395, 392, 506, 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused in the case had committed dacoity/robbery by snatching away gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that on an earlier occasion the accused had robed the de facto complainant of certain gold ornaments at Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District. It is alleged that thereafter at Ernakulam on 09-08-2020 the accused again served some intoxicating drug and robbed the de facto complainant of a gold chain, locket, gold bangle and ring and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that there were some relationship between the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused and in connection with some services offered/ to be offered by the 1^st accused to the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant had himself handed over the gold ornaments in question to the 1^st accused. It is submitted that the petitioner had rented out a car to the 1^st accused and the 1^st accused had required the petitioner to come to Ernakulam and collect the amount due in respect of the same. It is submitted that when petitioner arrived at Ernakulam, the 1^st accused handed over certain gold ornaments to the petitioner asked him to pledge it in some institution and take the money received by such pledge towards the rent due in respect of the car. It is submitted that the petitioner

¶21

B.A. No.433/2022 -3-

¶22

has no role in the matter. Finally it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11-01-2022 and his continued detention is not required for the purposes of any investigation in the matter. It is submitted that while the other accused have criminal antecedents, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor vehementally opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted with reference to the records that accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 have several cases registered against them. It is submitted that going by the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant the petitioner has a clear role in the matter. It is submitted that the grant of bail to the petitioner may not be conducive to the prosecution as there is every chance the material witnesses may be influenced by the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner adds that despite the allegation that the first incident took place at Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District some time in the month of February 2020 and the second incident took place in the month of August 2020, the complaint which led to registration of crime was given only on 13-08-2020. This itself, according to the learned counsel, shows that there are no bonafides in the allegations raised.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and also the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 13-01-2022, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail as his continued detention may not be necessary for the purposes of any investigation.

¶26

B.A. No.433/2022

¶27

-4-

¶28

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶30

(ii) The Petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report;

¶31

(iii) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station;

¶32

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶33

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.647/2020 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶34

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶35

AMG

Akhil @ Valiyamon, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil @ Valiyamon, v. the 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

Midhun K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Ajeshkumar N.S, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Ambili Kumar Vs State of Kerala

X Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith Vs Excise Range Officer

Xxxx Vs State of Kerala