Asok @ Muppaikkara and Saravankumar v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 640 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1378/2023 OF Petta Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:`** ``` 1 ASOK @ MUPPAIKKARA AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KAMARAJ, 2/121, NEAR GOVERNMENT VETERINARY HOSPITAL, NORTH STREET, KARUPPAYURANI DESOM, KALIYAPPAN PANCHAYAT, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 625020 2 SARAVANAKUMAR AGED 32 YEARS S/O. JAYAPAL, PALLIVASAL STREET, 15/56, NEAR MOSQUE, KARUPPAYURANI DESOM, KALIYAPPAN PANCHAYAT, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU., PIN - 625020 BY ADVS. C.JOSEPH ANTONY S.UDHAYAKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY C.S. HRITHWIK SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, ``` ``` THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A No.640 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.1378/2023 of the Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused ( three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 365 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code (‘the Code’ for short). The petitioners were arrested on 13.12.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 07.12.2023 at about 3.00 p.m, the first accused went to the house of the de facto complainant and abducted her husband, Mr.Madhumohan Raj, at knife point and took him away to Madurai. The detenue was secretly and wrongfully confined at various places with the active connivance of the accused 2 and 3. Thereafter, the B. A No.640 of 2024 3 accused demanded a ransom for the release of the detenue. The accused threatened to take the life of the detenue if the ransom was not paid. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Joseph Antony. C, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. Even going by the prosecution case, it was the first accused who has abducted the detenue. The petitioners have all throughout been in Tamil Nadu. The subject matter in dispute between the first accused and the de facto complainant has been settled out of court and the parties have filed Annexure B memorandum of compromise. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the B. A No.640 of 2024 4 recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the investigation in the case is in progress. The first accused is still at large. The second accused is a person with criminal antecedents, as he is involved in six other crimes including two murder cases and one case under the NDPS Act. The petitioners are hirelings. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. They have no roots in Kerala and would flee from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that on 07.12.2023 at about 3.00 p.m, the first accused abducted the detenue on knife point and took him to Madurai, and kept him in B. A No.640 of 2024 5 captivity. Thereafter, the accused threatened to murder the detenue if the ransom was not paid. Initially the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/-, but later, they increased their demand to Rs.5,00,000/- and then to Rs.10,00,000/-. They also sent a video clip of their threat through a WhatsApp video call to the brother of the detenue. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the police registered the above crime. When it was learnt that the accused hail from Tamil Nadu, a Special Team was constituted and the accused 2 and 3/ the petitioners were arrested from Karuppaayoorani, near Madurai. The detenue identified the said petitioners, and their arrest was recorded on 13.12.2023. The investigation has further revealed that the second accused/the first petitioner, is a history sheeter for being involved in six other crimes, of which four are registered by the Karuppaayoor Rani Police Station as Crime Nos.58/2002, 78/2002, 364/2009, and B. A No.640 of 2024 6 159/2004, one by the Madurai City Police Station as Crime No. 191/2013, and one by the Othakkatrai Police Station as Crime No.49/2004. Crime Nos. 78/2002 and 49/2004 are registered against the first petitioner for allegedly committing the offences under Section 302 of the Code and Crime No. 191/2013 is registered for allegedly committing the offences under the NDPS Act. However, the second petitioner has no antecedents. Indisputably, the first accused is yet to be arrested. In fact, he has filed B.A. No. 615/2024 before this Court, under Section 438 of the Code for an order of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the investigation in the case is only at its nascent stage. 7. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], in paragraph 9, 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 B. A No.640 of 2024 7 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 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” ## 8. Again, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another** [AIR 2004 SC 1866] has held thus: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly B. A No.640 of 2024 8 where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002(3) SCC 598) and Puran v. Rambilas and another (2001 (6) SCC 338)” 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the bar, and comprehending on the nature, seriousness, and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioners, that the investigation is still in progress, that the first accused is still at large, and the reasonable apprehension of the prosecution of the flight risk of the petitioners and that they are capable of intimidating the witnesses and tampering 9 ## B. A No.640 of 2024 with the evidence, especially because the first petitioner/2nd accused is a person with criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail because there is a danger of justice being thwarted. The application is devoid of any merit, and it is only to be dismissed. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/05.02.24