Manju v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 882 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.2073/2023 OF Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2023 IN CMP 290/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA** ## **PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:** MANJU, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O MANI, KUNNUMPARAMBATHU HOUSE VANIYAMKULAM .P.O. VANIYAMKULAM PANCHAYATH PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 522 BY ADVS. AJMAL V. A. A.C.ARFANA FATHIMA V.A. ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **..2..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------Bail Application No. 882 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 6[th] accused in crime No.2073 of 2023 of the Cherthala Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (nine in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 363, 384 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that, on 23.12.2023 at around 2.30 hours, the first accused hit the informant in front of the Cherthala Railway station as requested by the second accused. The **..3..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** third accused hit the informant with a helmet and the fourth accused forcefully took away his mobile phone and accused five to seven hit him on different parts of his body. The first accused thereafter, abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language and the accused one to nine forcefully took the de-facto complainant in a car to a place in Kakkanad. Then, the second accused forcefully took away ATM Card of the defacto complainant and the accused five and six withdrew an amount of Rs.1,700/- from a nearby ATM and the first accused took away Rs.1,600/- from his purse. They also video graphed the de-facto complainant and jointly assaulted him. The de-facto complainant also suffered a loss of Rs.22,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Ajmal V.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned **..4..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegation levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 28 days. The investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that three of the accused are yet to be arrested. The petitioner had used the ATM card of the informant and withdrew an amount of Rs.1,700/- along with the fifth accused from the **..5..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** ATM Machine. The investigation in this case is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and especially comprehending the fact that the petitioner is a lady, that she has been in judicial custody from, 12.01.2024, that the investigation in this case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's continued detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him **..6..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** 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 one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 **..7..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** 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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. **..8..** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** (viii) 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** ## **PR** ## **B.A.No.882 of 2024** **..9..** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 882/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2023 .IN C.M.P. NO: 290/2024