# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941**
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 10554/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, THRISSUR**
**CRIME NO.1969/2016 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur**
## **APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.3:**
**RENJITH AGED 34 YEARS S/O. RAVI, KADAVIL HOUSE, POOLAKKAL DESOM, MATTAMPURAM, THRISSUR.**
**BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIS**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.**
**SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**2**
## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= B.A.No.3472 of 2019**
**============================** Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2019
## **O R D E R**
The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the crime No.1969 of 2016 of Thrissur Town West Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 308, 294(b), 506 (1), 120 (b), 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (a), 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
2. As per Anx.A order dated 15.12.2016, rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.10554 of 2016, the petitioner herein (A3) was granted the benefit of statutory default bail as the final report could not be filed within the maximum permissible time going by the prescriptions of the proviso under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Five conditions had been imposed in Anx.A order while granting the benefit of statutory default bail to the petitioner and condition No.4 thereof reads as follows: _“The said accused persons shall not involve in similar offences during the bail period.”_ Thereafter the petitioner has again
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**3**
been arrayed as accused in crime No.1052 of 2018 in Ollur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 308, 120 (b) of the IPC and Sections 3 (a) and 6 of Explosive Substances Act.
3. In view of the above said aspects the prosecution moved an application before the competent Court below concerned, seeking cancellation of the bail as per Anx.A order on account of the petitioner violating condition No.4 thereof that he shall not involved in similar offences during the bail period. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Thrissur as thereafter rendered Anx.B order dated 12.04.2019, in CMP No.553 of 2019, after hearing both sides that as the petitioner patently violated the said condition No.4 in Anx.A bail order, bail granted him stands cancelled in exercise of the powers under Section 437 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Later consequent to Anx.B order, warrant was issued against him and he was again remanded to Judicial custody on 26.04.2019. Thereafter petitioner has moved separate bail application as per CMP No.692 of 2019 before the learned Magistrate seeking grant of regular bail. The said plea for bail has now been rejected by the learned Magistrate as per the impugned Anx.C order dated 07.05.2019. The
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**4**
Magistrate has held that as in view of Anx.B bail cancellation order, the petitioner has been remanded to Central prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 26.04.2019, and that no grounds have been made out for granting bail to the petitioner and that there is every chance for the petitioner likely to commit similar offences while on bail etc. It is this order of Anx.C that is under challenge in Crl.M.C.
5. Heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that Anx.B order is illegal in as much as no proper summary inquiry has been conducted to evaluate on the aspects regarding the registration of the second crime and to decide whether in substance there is a real case of violation of the bail order. In that regard petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi**_ [2000 (2) SCC 66], etc. However as rightly pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the legality and correctness of Anx.B order is not under challenge before this Court. The Anx. B order, cancelling the bail on account of the violation of the
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**5**
bail conditions has now attained finality. What is under challenged is only the subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate in Anx.C on 07.05.2019, whereby the subsequent bail application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
7. Learned Prosecutor has taken time to get instructions and has submitted that petitioner is a well known goonda gang leader, who is known in the locality as “ Kadavi Renjith” and he had involved in many crimes which has not been reported to the police only out of fear of many other victims that they would face retaliation from the hands of this gang. Further that on verification of police record, it is seen that the present petitioner (A3 in the instant crime) has got himself involved as accused in atleast 41 cases. The details of which are as follows:
|Sl No|<br>Name of Police Station|Crime No.|<br>Section of Law|<br>Section of Law||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|1|Nedupuzha PS|117/99|143, 147, 148|r/w 149||
||||IPC &<br>3(1) (x) of SC/ST|||
||||PA Act.|||
|2|Peramangalam PS|120/99|143, 147, 148, 323, 324,|||
||||r/w 149 IPC.|||
|3|Nedupuzha PS|205/02|341, 323, 324,||308 IPC|
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**6**
|4|Town East PS|230/02|230/02|341, 324, 34|341, 324, 34|341, 324, 34|IPC|IPC|IPC|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||||||||||||
|5|Nedupuzha PS|<br>113/03||452, 394, 34|||IPC|||||||
|6|Ollur PS|365/03||452, 307,||34||IPC and||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||27 of Arms Act||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|7|Nedupuzha PS|<br>292/04||341, 323, 324||||r/w 34 IPC||||||
|||||||||||||||
|8|Nedupuzha PS|<br>298/04||110(e) CrPC||||||||||
|9|Nedupuzha PS|299/04||<br>143, 147, 148,||||324, 326,||||||
|||||307 r/w|149 IPC|||||& 27|of|||
|||||||||||||||
|||||Arms Act.||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|1<br>0|<br>Nedupuzha PS|<br>32/05||323, 325, 427, 395 IPC||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|11|Nedupuzha PS|<br>33/05||392 IPC||||||||||
|12|Town West PS|130/05||392, 397 IPC||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|13|Nedupuzha PS|<br>286/05||294(b), 506(i),|||||34 IPC|||||
|14|Ollur PS|51/06||302, 34 IPC||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|15|Nedupuzha PS|253/06||143, 147, 148,||||447 r/w|||149|||
|||||IPC & 3,|5|of Expl. Sub. Act||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|16|Nedupuzha PS|<br>61/07||151 CRPC||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|17|Nedupuzha PS|<br>171/07||120(b), 109,|||143,|||144,|147,||148,|
|||||||||||||||
|||||448, 302,||404,|||r/w 149|||IPC &||
|||||||||||||||
|||||27 of Arms Act||||||||||
**==> picture [36 x 116] intentionally omitted <==**
**==> picture [36 x 148] intentionally omitted <==**
**==> picture [36 x 50] intentionally omitted <==**
**==> picture [36 x 208] intentionally omitted <==**
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**7**
|18|Nedupuzha PS|211/08|399|IPC|&27 of Arms|&27 of Arms|Act&Sec.|Act&Sec.|Act&Sec.|Act&Sec.|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||5 r/w 9(b) of Expl. Sub. Act||||||||
||||||||||||
|19|Town West PS|10/08|399|IPC|||||||
||||||||||||
|20|Town West PS|404/10|399|IPC|||||||
||||||||||||
|21|Mannuthy PS|783/10|120(B),||143, 147, 148,|||307,|||
||||||||||||
||||363, 323, 324, 395||||r/w||149||
||||||||||||
||||IPC|& Sec. 27 of Arms Act|||||||
||||||||||||
|22|West PS|335/11|341,|323,||324, 395, 506(i),34|||||
||||||||||||
||||IPC||||||||
||||||||||||
|23|<br>Nedupuzha PS|639/11|143,|147, 148, 109, 120(b),|||||452,||
||||427, 307 r/w 149 IPC||||&Sec.|||27.|
||||||||||||
||||of Arms Act & Sec. 3, 5 of||||||||
||||||||||||
||||Explosive|||Substance Act.|||||
||||||||||||
|24|Nedupuzha PS|551/12|110(e)CrPC (Bond Executed)||||||||
||||||||||||
|25|Varantharappilly|<br>1098/12|<br>399|IPC|||||||
||||||||||||
|26|Ollur PS|2108/12|341,|323, 324, 308, 506(ii) r/w|||||||
||||||||||||
||||34 IPC||||||||
||||||||||||
|27|Nedupuzha PS|932/13|341, 323,|||506(1) IPC|||||
|28|Nedupuzha PS|935/13|15(4) of KAAPA dtd 18.7.13||||||||
|29|Ollur PS|2085/13|<br>143,|147, 148, 341, 323, 294(b),|||||||
||||308|r/w|149 IPC & Sec.27|||||of|
||||Arms Act||||||||
||||||||||||
|30|Town East PS|2762/14|452, 94(b), 506(i), 427 IPC||||||||
||||||||||||
|31|Nedupuzha PS|1463/14|294(b), 506(1), 323 IPC||||||||
**==> picture [36 x 619] intentionally omitted <==**
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**8**
|32|<br>Nedupuzha PS|<br>Nedupuzha PS|<br>Nedupuzha PS||1464/14|1464/14|<br>353, 332|<br>353, 332|IPC||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|33|<br>Nedupuzha PS||||1465/14||<br>308, 341, 323 IPC||||||||
|34|<br>Nedupuzha P.S||||<br>1392/14||107|CRPC|||||||
|35|Nedupuzha P.S||||<br>88/15||399|IPC|||||||
|36|<br>Viyyur|PS|||1698/15||341,|324, 34 IPC||||(assaulted|||
||||||||Basheer @ Sivankutty at||||||||
||||||||Central jail Viyyur)||||||||
|37|Viyyur PS||||1184/16||452,294(b),427,506(ii) r/w 34||||||||
||||||||IPC||||||||
|38|Nedupuzha PS||||1670/16||<br>399|IPC|and|Sec|27 of Arms||||
||||||||Act.||||||||
|39|MCH PS||||1641/16||3(a)|and|6 of Expl.sub.Act||||||
||||||||1908 & 447,427 and 120(B) of||||||||
||||||||IPC||||||||
|40|<br>East PS||||2849/16||452,398,506(ii) IPC and||||||27 of||
||||||||Arms Act||||||||
|41|West PS||||1969/16||308,294(b),506(i), 120(B)|||||||r/w|
||||||||34 IPC & Sec|||3(a),6||of|||
||||||||Explosive Act 1908.||||||||
|8.|After|hearing both sides and after||||||consideration of||||||the|
|materials on record|||this||Court is of the|opinion that|||the|decision of||||the|
|learned|Magistrate||in|Anx.C rejecting|||the bail application of|||||||the|
**Bail Appl..No.3472 of 2019**
**9**
petitioner cannot be branded as illegal, improper or perverse. It is indisputable that after the grant of the bail order as per Anx.A order, petitioner has again got involved as an accused in similar offence, pursuant to which the bail granted to him as per Anx.A order has been cancelled as per Anx.B order. Thereafter warrant has been issued against him and he has been under judicial custody since 26.04.2019. In view of the indisputable facts that the petitioner has violated the bail conditions. No grounds have been made out to interfere in this case.
Accordingly this bail application will stand dismissed.
**Sd/-**
## **ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**JUDGE**
mpm
// True Copy // P.A. to Judge
