Anoop S vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1258/2022 of Muvattupuzha Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 364 A, 347, 323, 354, 368, 447, 342, 454, 386, 506, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution case is that on 07.05.2022, at about 6.00 p.m., the six accused, in furtherance of their common object kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant, due to enmity for the failure to return the amount borrowed by him and confined him in a hotel room and caused bodily injury. The accused also trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and outraged her modesty as well as that of her minor daughter and also committed extortion by removing the equipment worth Rs.1 Crore in a lorry.

Sri.Philip T.Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2022 and that he has been in custody since then. It was further contended that the petitioner is totally innocent and that he has been roped in the case on the basis of false allegations.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submitted that petitioner is already an accused in three other criminal cases like Crime Nos.730/2013 and Crime No.559/2008, both of Vaikom Police Station apart from Crime No.522/2013 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station and the release of the petitioner on bail will cause prejudice to the entire case, especially since the remaining accused have not yet been arrested.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Petitioner is alleged to have participated along with other 9 accused in a serious offence. Prima facie, there are materials which indicate the involvement of the petitioner in a serious offence. However, since the petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2022, I am of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner may not be warranted. Already, 4 accused amongst 10 have either surrendered or have been arrested and one of the accused has already obtained bail. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that continued detention of the petitioner is not required.

Accordingly  I  allow  this  application  on  the  following conditions :-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

(v) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the Muvattupuzha Police Station pending trial of the case except for the purpose of complying with the conditions imposed.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In  case  of  violation  of  any  of  the  above  conditions,  the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.