Bail Appl./8460/2013 of PRAMOD Vs STATE OF KERALA on 27 December 2013

1. PRAMOD, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, PLACHICKAL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOSHY, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.RAJU, INJAPURACKAL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. MOBEESH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN P.S., PODIPPURAYIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. ANEESH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.BABU, AZHAKATH HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. JINS, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.FRANCIS, ERATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. SATHEESH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SOMAN P.K., PLAKKATTU HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. SUMESH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.GOPI, MUTHUMACKAL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. SAINU, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.JACOB, PATTATHUSSERIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 9. LYVIN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN, VELLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 10. ROBIN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

11. SHIBU, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, EDUTHUMPADY HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 12. LIJO, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, KANIYAMMETEL HOUSE, 6TH MILE KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O., CHAKKUPALLOM VILLAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

NS

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.

..................................................

B.A. No. 8460 of 2013

...................................................

Dated this the 27[th] day of December, 2013ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent. CD produced.

3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that thepetitioners apprehend arrest by the Vandanmedu Policein Crime No.616 of 2013 in which the offences alleged areunder Sections 452, 308, 324, 323, 427, 143, 144, 147 and148 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners have notcommitted any offence at all. The petitioners were calledby the police to the police station and shown them to thede facto complainant. The de facto complainant did notidentify any of the petitioners as accused in the crime.Even then, the police repeatedly comes to the residenceof the petitioners and threatens that they would bearrested in Crime No.616 of 2013 in which non-bailable

offences are alleged. The petitioners are innocent of theallegations raised in the said crime. The investigation inthat case has progressed much. The accused 1 to 4 inthat case were already granted regular bail by theSessions Court, Thodupuzha. The petitioners have nocriminal antecedents. The de facto complainant or othershave not sustained any serious injury. He further submitsthat the petitioners apprehend arrest by the police at anytime.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed thispetition. He has not disputed the fact that the de factocomplainant or others have not sustained any seriousinjury. He submits that no criminal antecedents havebeen reported against the petitioners and the accused 1to 4 in the case were already granted regular bail by theSessions Court. He further submits that the petitionersare suspects in Crime No.616 of 2013.

5. On considering the facts and circumstancesincluding the nature of the offences alleged, this Court isof the view that this is not a fit case for granting B.A. No. 8460 of 2013

anticipatory bail.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.01.2014.If the petitioners are arrested by him after interrogation,they should be produced before the concernedMagistrate's Court on that day itself and that court onapplication for bail being filed by the petitioners shallconsider the same on that day itself and release them onbail imposing appropriate conditions.

AMV/27/12/

sd/-

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE