BINOYEES O.B v. STATE OF KERALA

B.A.No.387 of 2024 1 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 387 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.2390/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED 3:` ``` BINOYEES O.B, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.BALAN O.P, OLIYATH HOUSE, LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHITTATTUKARA, NORTH PARAVUR, VADAKKEKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683522 ``` ``` BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.387 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is a second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.2390/2023 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (four in number) alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 17.11.2023, at 19.08 hours, while the de facto complainant was walking through the Thrissur Railway station road, the accused Nos.1 to 4 forcibly entered into his car, assaulted him and robbed 244 grams of gold B.A.No.387 of 2024 3 worth Rs.10 lakh and a mobile phone worth Rs.9,700/-. Thus, they have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the above case. The petitioner had earlier moved B.A.No.10955/2023, seeking an order of bail. By Annexure A2 order, this Court dismissed the application principally on the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused 1 and 2 were not arrested. Subsequent to the dismissal of the bail application, the accused 1 and 2 have been arrested. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The recovery, so far as it relates to the petitioner, has been effected. The petitioner’s B.A.No.387 of 2024 4 continued detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the accused 4 and 6 are yet to be arrested. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.11.2023, which is nearly 60 days. The investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner’s is concerned, is practically complete. The recovery has been effected. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.11.2023, that the investigation in the case is B.A.No.387 of 2024 5 practically complete, that the accused 1 and 2 have already been arrested, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; B.A.No.387 of 2024 6 (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation B.A.No.387 of 2024 7 of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/29.01.24 B.A.No.387 of 2024 8 ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 387/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2390/2023 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION DATED 19.11.2023 Annexure 2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 IN B.A.NO.10955/2023 Annexure 3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ERNAKULAM, DATED 18.01.2024 ```