Ramshad @ Raja @ Abu v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 10617 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.502/2023 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 9337/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST** **CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **RAMSHAD @ RAJA @ ABU, AGED 23 YEARS S/O SHAJAHAN , SHAHANA MANZIL , KOTTAMAM, KOLLAYIL DESOM , KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691541** **BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SABIR N.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 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Code’) by the first accused in Crime No.502/2023 of the Pangode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered against the accused (2 in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w. S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 14.05.2023 at around 9 hours, the accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft went on a motorcycle ridden by the second accused with the first accused on the pillion and they snatched the gold chain of the defacto complainant weighing 3 sovereigns worth Rs.1,20,000/-. The defacto complainant sustained pain on her neck. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri. John Joseph (Roy), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **3** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime merely on the basis of suspicion. The police have a grudge towards the petitioner when he was arrested in crime No.1913/2020. In fact, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the police before the State Police Complaint Authority and the same was disposed of by Annexure A4 order. It is because of the said order, the petitioner has been implicated in 27 other crimes of similar nature. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.05.2023. The investigation in the present case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has placed a report opposing the application. He has stated that the petitioner and the second accused have committed the offence **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **4** punishable under Section 392 IPC. The petitioner is a history sheeter since he is involved in 27 other cases. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offences, intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention snatched the gold chain of the defacto complainant having a value of Rs.1,20,000/- and caused pain to her neck. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner is a history sheeter. He is involved in the following crimes: 1. Pothencode PS Cr. 953/19 U/S 379,34 IPC 2. Parassala PS Cr. 1038/19 U/S 379,201,34 IPC 3. Kattakkada PS.Cr. 1158/19 U/S 379 IPC 4. Kattakkada PS Cr. 1159/19 U/S 380 IPC 5. Kallampalam PS Cr. 127/20 U/S 379,34 IPC 6. Parassala PS Cr. 1913/20 U/S 452,427,395 IPC 7. Kattakkada PS Cr. 669/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 8. Kattakkada PS Cr. 670/21 U/S 379,34 IPC **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** ## **5** 9. Parassala PS Cr.336/21 U/S 379 IPC 10.Parassala PS Cr.396/21 U/S 379 IPC 11. Parassala PS Cr.395/21 U/S 379 IPC 12.Parassala PS Cr. 400/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 13.Parassala PS Cr.401/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 14.Parassala PS Cr. 402/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 15.Parassala PS Cr.403/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 16.Parassala PS Cr. 404/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 17. Parassala PS Cr. 405/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 18. Parassala PS Cr. 406/21 U/S 379,34 IPC 19.Neyyardam PS Cr. 322/21 U/S 457,380 IPC 20.Vilappilsala PS Cr. 438/21 U/S 392,34 IPC 21. Aryanadu PS Cr. 449/21 u/s 392,34 IPC 22.Pozhiyur PS Cr. 294/23 U/S 379 IPC - 23.Marayamuttam PS Cr. 243/23 U/S 379 IPC 24. Marayamuttam PS Cr. 409/23 u/s 379,34 IPC 25.Kottar PS Cr. 137/23 U/S 379 IPC 26. Neyyattinkara PS Cr. 925/23 U/S 394 IPC 27. Kattakkada PS Cr. 392,34 IPC Indisputably, the petitioner is in judicial custody in the above cases. The petitioner's arrest was formally recorded in the present case. **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **6** ## 7. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], 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 danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 8. in **Chandra Sarkar v.** Subsequently, **Kalyan Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another** , [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **7** 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 witness 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 witnesses by the accused. 9. In **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar** [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **8** courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.” 10. 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 **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **9** 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.” 11. On an anxious consideration to the facts, materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, I am prima facie satisfied that the accusations levelled against the petitioner seem to be true. On comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the potential severity of the **BAIL APPL.NO.10617 OF 2023** **10** punishment that is likely to be imposed on him, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may flee from justice and tamper with the evidence, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as it would have a deleterious impact on the society. Hence, I hold that the application is meritless and is only liable to be rejected. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **shg**