Amal Vinod v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1108 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.325/2022 OF RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` AMAL VINOD AGED 21 YEARS S/O LATE VINOD MANGHUZICHALIL, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686576 BY ADV JOHN MANJOORAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. C. S. HRITHWIK – SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1108 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the second accused in Crime No.325/2022 of the Ramapuram Police Station, Kottayam registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 328, 447, 212 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2022. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention and out of the previous animosity towards the Police Officials attached to the Ramapuram Police Station, ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024`** indulged in anti-social activities on 05.04.2022 at 20.00 hours, by spraying pepper spray in the eyes of the police personnel and preventing them from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. John Manjooran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2022, the investigation of the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. ``` 4 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is involved in 14 other crimes of different Police Stations in the State, for allegedly committing offences of similar nature. The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short ‘KAPPA Act’). If the petitioner is released on bail, he would be menace to the society and it would send a wrong message. There is every likelihood of petitioner sabotaging the trial and also intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that on 05.04.2022 while the Police attached to the Ramapuram Police Station was conducting patrolling duty, they heard noise in the St. Augustine’s School at Ramapuram. ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024`** When they attempted to enter the school compound, the petitioner caught hold of them along with the other accused and sprayed pepper spray and prevented the police party from discharging their officials duties. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an accused in the following cases: 1. Vakathanam P.S.Crime No.900/19 u/ss.341, 294 (b), 323, 324, 308, 427 r/w s.34 IPC. 2. 174/2020 of Ponkunnam P.S. u/s 279, 353, 328, 332 & 34 IPC. 3. 458/2020 of Pala P.S. u/s 379 & 34 IPC. 4. 876/2020 of Ramapuram P.S. u/s 379 IPC. 5. 1015/2020 of Manimala P.S. u/s 379 IPC. 6. 1755/2020 of Keezhavaipur P.S. u/s 380,461 & 34 IPC. 7. 42/2021 u/s 153,427 & 34 IPC Karukachal P.S. 8. 20/2021 of Manarcadu P.S. u/s 379 & 34 IPC. ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024`** 9. 94/2021 of Ramapuram P.S. u/s 392 & 34 IPC. 10. 592/2021 of Nedumangadu P.S. u/s 379, 201 & 34 IPC. 11. Report u/s 107 crime of Ramapuram P.S. 12. 201/2022 of Thodupuzha P.S. u/s 379, 34 IPC. 13. 330/2022 of Mangalapuram P.S. u/s 294(b), 341, 324, 308 г/w 34 IPC. 14. 318/2022 of Chirayinkeezhu P.S. u/s 392 & 34 IPC. It is also seen that the proceedings had been initiated under the KAPPA Act. 8. Although the petitioner had moved similar application before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala by filing Crl.M.P. No.118/2023 in S.C. No.366/2023, by Annexure B order the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application, taking into ``` 7 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` account the gravity and seriousness of the crime and the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter. 9. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: “9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: - i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ii. nature and gravity of the accusation: iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; - v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” ``` 8 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` 10. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another** [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is ``` 9 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the evidence by the accused. ## 11. In **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar** [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.” ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` 12. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr** [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines: “30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.” ``` 11 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` 13. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the nature, gravity and the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, that the petitioner is a history sheeter who is involved in the above mentioned cases, that the prosecution has a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and sabotage the trial and further if the petitioner is released on bail, it would have deleterious impact on the society and justice would be thwarted, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 14. At the said point of time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has to undergo a implant removal surgery. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all ``` 12 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024 ``` necessary arrangements have been made to get the surgery conducted through the Jail Authorities. The said submission is recorded. However, it will upto the discretion of the Jail Authorities to permit the petitioner’s grandmother to take care of his personal needs, if it is permissible. In the above observations, the bail application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 13 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1108 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1108/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 325/2022 OF RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 05-04-2022 Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-10-2023 IN CMP.118/2023 IN SC NO.366/2023 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL`**