The High Court of Kerala heard two bail applications for accused persons charged with kidnapping and dacoity. The Court held that custodial interrogation was essential and dismissed the petitions, rejecting anticipatory bail.
Petitions for anticipatory bail granted are dismissed. Accused persons do not qualify for release on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 9317 OF 2022
CRIME NO.627/2022 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
1 SABITH. N AGED 30 YEARS S/O. NASARUDHEEN, NARIKKALVILA (H), RANDATHANI P.O., RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676510. 2 MUHAMMEDKUTTY KUNNAKKATT, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. ABDURAHMAN, KUNNAKKATT (H), RANDATHANI P.O., RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676510 3 SABITH THRUNILATH AGED 31 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, THIRUNILATH(H), RANDATHANI P.O., RANDATHANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676510. BY ADVS. B.A. ALOOR K.P.PRASANTH(K/000536/2017) VISHNU DILEEP(K/000325/2018) T.S.KRISHNENDU(K/000685/2018) ARCHANA SURESH(K/001409/2018) ULLAS U.(K/000428/2022)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.
SMT.T V NEEMA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.10023/2022, THE COURT ON 16.03.2023 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10023 OF 2022
CRIME NO.627/2022 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
KARUN SIVADAS AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SIVADAS, RESIDING AT SIVASADANAM PALAYIL, THAMARASSERI ROAD, 143, POONITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682038. BY ADVS. RAMEEZ NOOH MILLU DANDAPANI FATHIMA K. RONIT ZACHARIAH THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN – 682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673573. BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.V.NEEMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.9317/2022, THE COURT ON 16.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 3
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
B.A.No.9317 of 2022 and B.A.No.10023 of 2022
================================
Dated this the 16 th day of March, 2023
C O M M O N O R D E R
B.A.No.9317/2022 is at the instance of accused 7 to 9 in
Crime No.627/2022 of Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode,
seeking anticipatory bail. Accused No.10 in the above crime seeks anticipatory bail in B.A.No.10023/2022.
2 . Heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant
documents forming part of the case diary.
3. The prosecution case is that while the defacto complainant was going to his house after closing his shop at Mukkam at about 9.45 p.m on 22.10.2022, on his scooter bearing
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 4
Registration No.KL 57 R 5239 and when he reached Vezhupura, a TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.KL-11-AM-9578 came from behind restrained the scooter. Thereafter, 4 persons forcefully kidnapped him and took him into the TATA Sumo car. Inside the TATA Sumo car, one more person also was sitting on the back seat. Another Swift car also followed the Sumo car along with some persons. After moving the vehicle for a while, the defacto complainant was taken in a Thar Jeep by one Ali Ubairan, who is familiar to the defacto complainant along with 3 other persons, who were not known to the petitioner. Thereafter he was taken inside the Thar Jeep, after covering his eye, to a distant place. After running for about 6 hours, he was taken to a house and removed the covering on his eyes. Thereafter they manhandled him and demanded to tell one Lijas to give money. Later it was understood that Ali Ubairan kidnapped him with intention to get money from Lijas. The further allegation is that he was dropped at a place not known to the defacto complainant after robbing
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 5
Rs.7,000/- from his purse and also after taking his mobile phone worth Rs.70,000/-. This is the base on which the prosecution
alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 364(A),
395, 341, 342, 323, 120 (B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4 . While pressing for anticipatory bail to the 10 th accused,
the learned counsel for the 10 th accused argued that the 10 th accused has no role in this occurrence and no specific overt act at his instance also to be read out from the prosecution records. He also submitted that since the investigation has achieved much progress, custodial interrogation of the 10 th accused is not necessary and therefore, the 10 th accused is liable to be released on anticipatory bail and he is ready to abide by any condition as a pre-requisite for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Somewhat similar argument has been tendered by the learned counsel for accused 7 to 9 while pressing for anticipatory bail.
6. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 6
that one Ali Ubairan, who wants to get money from one Lijas, after hatching conspiracy with the other accused, kidnapped the defacto complainant and taken to a distant place and manhandled him with demand to send voice message to one Lijas to give money to Ali Ubairan. It is submitted further that the 7 th accused Sabith.N, the 8th accused Muhammed kutty, the 9 th accused Sabith Thirunilath, are the persons, who forcefully taken the defacto complainant from Mukkam in a Sumo Jeep and at this juncture the 10 th accused telephoned the 4 th accused to enquire where the Thar Jeep reached from his Mobile No.8714711552. Thereafter when the Thar Jeep reached near the 10 th accused, the 10 th accused along with 2 other persons took the defacto complainant to a house and subjected him to torture with intention to accomplish their motive. Therefore, the role of the petitioners in this crime is well established and they do not deserve anticipatory bail since custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary to unearth the prosecution allegation. The learned Public Prosecutor also produced copy of the wound
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 7
certificate relating to the defacto complainant, showing multiple injuries, as the outcome of manhandling at the instance of the petitioners.
7. On perusal of the wound certificate, 6 injuries ranging from 6X2 cm as a result of assault at the instance of 4 to 5 persons could be gathered. The prosecution allegation is that those injuries were caused by the accused in this case, after keeping the defacto complainant in illegal custody to be gathered. In the copy of 164 statement given by the defacto complainant, all these matters dealt in detail, inclusive of the role of accused Nos.7 to 10 in tune with
the prosecution allegation as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The 4 th accused, while he was in custody, also given statement in support of the statement of the defacto complainant identifying the petitioners herein and their role specifically. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered because of the fact that the crime is very serious, where arrest, custodial
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 8
interrogation and the details regarding the money and mobile phone snatched away by the accused are absolutely necessary.
Therefore, these petitions cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, both these petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 9
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9317/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 627/2022 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL
B.A.Nos.9317/2022 & 10023/2022 10
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10023/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 627/2022 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS STATEMENT DTD.23.10.2022 IN THE ABOVE CRIME.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused Nos. 7 to 10 facing serious charges of kidnapping, dacoity, and extortion.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth prosecution allegations regarding the crime.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SABITH. N
MUHAMMEDKUTTY KUNNAKKATT
SABITH THRUNILATH
KARUN SIVADAS
STATE OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
