Vijin Das v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1372/2023 OF Cantonment Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** VIJIN DAS ,S/O.BHAKTA DAS AGED 33 YEARS MATHA HOUSE, NEAR RC CHURCH KOLLUDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM, MALAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695571 BY ADVS. T.ASAFALI LALIZA.T.Y. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, POST CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., KERALA, PIN - 695033 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PPSRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused no.37 in Crime No.1372/2023 of the Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (now 39 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 224, 225B, 283, 332, 333, 353 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 77(1)(b), 39 and 121 of the Kerala Police Act and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 2. The gist of the prosecution case, is that:under the leadership of the accused 1 to 38, another 292 identifiable persons formed an unlawful assembly, in furtherance of their common intention, and shouted slogans and blocked the free movement of the pedestrian as well as traffic. Despite repeated directions issued by the Police officials, the accused obstructed their duties and prevented them from arresting some of the accused. BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 3 The accused 5, 35 and 37 along with other accused, by using reapers and sticks, attempted to break the glasses of some vehicles. The accused caused a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the State. Thus the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Asaf Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of the 32 accused who were arrested, 31 accused have been enlarged on bail. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.01.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation in the case is not BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 4 complete. The petitioner and other accused have criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in two other crimes. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that 31 other accused have been released on bail. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that 31 of the 32 accused have already been released on bail, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 5 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 6 affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) 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. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - (vii) 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.** BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 7 **State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/31.01.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 630 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 630/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DT.4.1.2024 GIVEN BY S.I OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION TO THE COURT OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17TH JANUARY 2024 MADE IN CRL.M.C.NO.117/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SESSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.