Prabhul K.P. v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1914 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1275/2023 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD ``` ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ``` ``` PRABHUL K.P, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SURENDRAN, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670741 ``` ``` BY ADV M.R.SASITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A No.1914 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.1275/2023 of the Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (12 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 365 & 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 7.12.2023, at around 20.30 hours, while the de facto complainant and his friend were travelling in a car, the accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit dacoity, came in different vehicles and blocked the vehicle of the de facto complainant, representing themselves as police officials, had forcefully took the de facto complainant and his friend from the car and B. A No.1914 of 2024 3 thereafter assaulted them and dropped them off. They have also robbed the money kept in the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.M.R Sasith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences under Sections 365 and 395 of the IPC will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2024, which is more than 60 days. The investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously B. A No.1914 of 2024 4 opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other crimes, namely Crime No.920/2015 and Crime No.2/2020 for committing the predicate offences under Sections 338 and 308 of the IPC. It is further contended that the investigation in the case is in progress and recovery is to be effected. The petitioner is not entitled for default bail, since the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC is punishable for life. Therefore, the time period for statutory bail is 90 days. In any given case, if the petitioner is released on bail, he would tamper with evidence and there is likelihood of him every intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The accusations in Annexure A1 FIR reveal that, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to B. A No.1914 of 2024 5 commit dacoity, had stopped the vehicle of the de facto complainant and assaulted the de facto complainant and his friend and, thereafter, robbed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ## 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 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.” B. A No.1914 of 2024 6 8. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another** [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the evidence B. A No.1914 of 2024 7 by the accused. 9. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr** [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines: “30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents.Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.” ## 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival B. A No.1914 of 2024 8 submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on him, the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2024, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. The application is meritless and is only liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the application is dismissed SD/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/25/3/2024