Jishnu Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.382/2024 OF Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ``` -------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 :-`** ``` JISHNU UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,NJANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, THRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 301 ``` ``` BY ADVS. D.FEROZE JANET VARGHESE ADARSH A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :-`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANANGAD POLICE STATION,(CRIME NO.382/2024 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682 506`** ``` SMT.SEETHA.S., SR.PP ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ## **`12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in Crime No.382/2024 of the Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; between 09.04.2024 and 11.04.2024, while the de facto complainant has parked his lorry bearing No.KL-05-Z-6658 in his compound, the accused committed theft of the automotive battery of the vehicle. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.D.Feroze, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offence. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last two months, investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is an inveterate offender since he is involved in six other crimes of the very same Police Station for committing the offence of theft and also an offence under the NDPS Act. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. The petitioner is a menace to the society. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; he had committed the theft of the automotive battery of the vehicle belonging to the de facto complainant. The materials placed on record establish that the petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.377/2024, 378/2024, 380/2024, 381/2024 and 382/2024 of the Panangad Police Station for committing the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. Similarly, the petitioner is also an accused in Crime No.367/2022 of the Hill Palace Police Station for committing the offence punishable under the NDPS Act. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is a habitual offender. 7. 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` 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”. ## 8. v. Smilarly, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar 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 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. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` (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._ ) 9. The law has thus crystalised that while deciding an application for bail under Section 439, the courts are obliged to look into the nature, gravity and seriousness of the crime, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed, the character, behaviour and standing of the accused, the prosecution’s legitimate apprehension regarding the tampering of evidence, the flight risk that is involved and whether releasing the accused on bail would have a deleterious impact on the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in six other crimes of similar nature, the investigation in the case is in progress and the ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner is likely to commit similar offences, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequentially, the application is only to be dismissed. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S. DIAS, JUDGE** Jvt/12.6.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4242 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.4242/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** - **`Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO: 382/2024 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT`** - **`Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.05.2023 IN CRL MC NO: 1416/2024 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM`**