Jiju Rajan v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1466/2023 OF Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1760 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` JIJU RAJAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. RAJAN,THATTIL HOUSE,CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680307 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT.NIKITA J. MENDEZ SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SMT.SRUTHY N. BHAT SRI.RAHUL SUNIL SMT.SRUTHY K.K SRI.SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P. SMT.NANDITHA S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SMT.NEEMA T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 2 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS,J ============ BA No.3776 of 2024** **----------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 1[st] accused in Crime No.1466 of 2023 of the Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under section 341,323,324,308,394,201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The petitioner was arrested on 25.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 20.11.2023, at around 20.30 hours, the accused, infurtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and they tied the hands of the defacto complainant and committed robbery of Rs.20,000 from the house of the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 3 ``` have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Smt Nikita J.Mendez, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt Neema T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.01.2024, the investigating case is complete and the final report has been laid. More over, the defacto complainant has filed an application for further investigation. Therefore, it is certain that the petitioner would be incarcinated for an indefinite period of time. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is an accused in 24 crimes, out ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 4 ``` of which 22 crimes are of the very same Police Station, including crimes for committing the offences under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. There are 2 cases registered by the Kalady Police Station and Thrissur West Police Stations. All the offences are heinous in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Preventive detention proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the KAAPA act. Hence, the application is only to be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he along with the other accused infurtherance of their common intention had trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant tied his hands and committed robbery. It may be true that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.01.2024 but, the materials on record reveal that the petitioner is an accused in the following crime scenes. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 5 ``` 1. Chalakudy PS Cr. 310/2002 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 452, 506(i) IPC & 27 of NDPS Act 2.Chalakudy PS Cr.478/2003 u/s 385/ IPC 3.Chalakudy PS Cr. 477/2003 u/s 143, 147, 148, 447, 307 r/w 149 IPC & Sec.27 of Arms Act 4.Chalakudy PS Cr. 831/2007 u/s 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC 5.Chalakudy PS Cr. 64/2007 is 323, 324 IPS 6.Chalakudy PS Cr. 323/2012 392 IPC 7.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1687/2012 u/s 392 IPC 8.Kalady PS Cr. /29/2013 u/s 307 IPC 9.Chalakudy PS C1760/2012 107 CrPC 10.Thrissur West S Cr. 37/2004 u/s 394 IPC 11.Chalakudy. PS 138/2008 u/s 143, 147, 142, 109, 120 (b), 149 PC 12.Chalakudy PS Cr.789/2008 u/s Sec.3 of KAAPA 13.Chalakudy PS Cr.127/2009 u/s 363, 393 IPC 14 Chalakudy PS Cr. 2453/2013 u/s 110 [e] CrPC 15. Chalakudy PS Cr. 2091/2015 u/s 341, 323, 324, 326 IPC 16. Chalakudy PS Cr. 613/2019 u/s 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 34 IPC 17.Chalakudy PS Cr. 507/2018 u/s 151 CrPC 18.Chalakudy PS Cr. 126/2018 u/s 151 CrPC 19.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1386/2010 u/s 151 CrPC 20.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1039/2021 u/s 151 CrPC 21.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1098/2021 u/s 151 CrPC 22.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1051/2021 u/s 151 CrPC 23.Chalakudy PS Cr. 1092/2021 u/s 151 CrPC 24.Chalakudy PS Cr. 465/2022 u/s 324, 307 IPC 7. The above statistics establish that the petitioner is a history sheeter. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 6 ``` 8. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while dealing with bail applications by holding as follows: “9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. 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 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 9.Similarly, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Honourable Supreme Court observed thus: “11.The law regarding 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 7 ``` 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 with 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 [(2002) 3 SCC 598] and uran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338.)” 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner is an accused in 24 crimes of very serious nature, that preventive detention proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and that if the petitioner is released on bail it there would be unrest in the society, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Instead the petitioner would have to face custodial trial. Therefore, the jurisdictional court shall consider and dispose of the proceedings, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner is an under trial prisoner. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 8 ``` With the above observation, the application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** STB ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2024 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3776/2024`** |**`PETITIONER`**|**`ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure-1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-01-`**| ||**`2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A. NO.`**| ||**`11593/2023`**| |**`Annexure-2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-01-`**| ||**`2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 711/2024 OF THE`**| ||**`COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE, CHALAKKUDY`**| |**`Annexure-3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-02-`**| ||**`2024 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 188/2024 OF THE`**| ||**`COURT OF SESSIONS, THRISSUR`**| |**`Annexure-4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-03-`**| ||**`2024 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1760/2024 OF THIS`**| ||**`HON'BLE COURT`**| |**`Annexure-5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-04-`**| ||**`2024 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 528/2024 OF THE`**| ||**`COURT OF SESSIONS, THRISSUR`**|