Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9185/2021 of AYYOOB V.K. Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2021
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 9185 OF 2021 CRIME NO.598/2021 OF Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: AYYOOB V.K. AGED 28 YEARS S/O YOUSAF,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943BAIL APPL. NO. 9185 OF 2021CRIME NO.598/2021 OF Nilambur Police Station, MalappuramPETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
AYYOOB V.K.AGED 28 YEARSS/O YOUSAF, VALLIKKADN HOUSE, NADAVAKKAD, MAMPAD COLLEGE P O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676542.BY ADV M.DEVESH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.BY ADV.SR.PP SMT.T.V.NEEMATHIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2021
This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure seeking regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused No.4 in CrimeNo.598/2021 of Nilambur Police Station. The offences alleged areunder Sections 389 and 395 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 17/10/2021,petitioner along with the remaining accused wrongfully confinedthe de facto complainant from 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m. and robbed`5,00,000/- from him by criminally intimidating him stating thathe will be arrayed as an accused in a POCSO case.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falselyimplicated in the present case. He further submitted that thereare no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crimeand hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. She contended that the allegedincident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of thepetitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, itwould affect the course of investigation.
6. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that prima faciethere are materials on record to connect the petitioner with thecrime. However, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custodyon 4/11/2021. In view of the nature of the crime and the stage ofinvestigation, I do not find any reason to hold that the continueddetention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. Theinvestigation seems to have reached a fair stage. There is a delayof 22 days in lodging the FIR. Moreover, the only allegationagainst the petitioner is that he has assisted the remainingaccused in the commission of the offence. For all these reasons,the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.
Perusal of the case diary would reveal that prima facie In the result, the application is allowed on the followingconditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing abond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solventsureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with theinvestigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigatingofficer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Saturday untilfurther orders. The petitioner shall also appear before theinvestigating officer as and when required by him.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of likenature while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contactany of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any otherperson, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence orinfluence any witnesses or other persons related to theinvestigation.
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala withoutthe permission of the trial Court.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE