Anoop @Suruma vs State Of Kerala

The applicant in B.A.No.1149 of 2021 is the 7th accused, while the applicant B.A.No.1394 of 2021 is the 11th accused in Crime No.1344 of 2020

of Thiruvallam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 225B and

379 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(4) of the PDPP Act, Section 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 24.12.2020, at about 6.00 PM, when the Police officers from the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, had come to apprehend accused

Nos. 7 and 8 in connection with another crime which was registered against them the applicants, together with the other co-accused, formed an

unlawful assembly, and in the prosecution of the common object, caused obstruction to their lawful apprehension by the Police officers and also

released them from custody. Thereafter, they committing riot armed with deadly weapons like beer bottles, firecrackers, petrol bomb etc; and also

assaulted the Police officers on duty and deterred them from performing their duty as public servants. They also committed theft of a wireless set and

caused extensive damage to the official department vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 01 BW 7974, a wireless handset, top light etc., causing a total loss of

Rs.5 lakhs to public property. Not only this, the applicants and the other co-accused also had the temerity to record the entire incident on a mobile

phone and had widely circulated it among their friends and well-wishers to indicate the pitiable position of the Police officers in the discharge of their

duties were put to. The applicants want to establish that they had an upper hand over the Police and that they couldn't be submitted to law and order.

Such was the attitude of the applicants. Accused Nos. 7 and 8, who were the persons, who were intended to be apprehended and were also made to

sit inside the police jeep before they were released by the other accused. The applicants were arrested on 27.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 respectively and

have been in custody for more than two months now. The applicants state that they are innocent, and the allegations against them are not true. It is

also stated that they are not implicated in any Crime at the Fort Police station so as to be apprehended. The applicants pray that their further

incarceration may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed

the applications for bail stating that granting of bail to these accused, who are the main perpetrators of the crime will demoralise the entire Police

force. And, moreover, it is also pointed out accused No.7 has three other crimes registered against him, which includes offences under the NDPS Act

and an offence for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC. The 11th accused has got only one more crime registered against him. ie., for an

offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Hence, it is pointed out, that in case, the applicants are released on bail, they would get involved in offences of

similar nature and may also intimidate and influence witnesses, who are all from the locality.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that Accused Nos. 1 and 9 were already granted bail in this crime. And, therefore, the

applicants are not differently placed. And, hence, they too are entitled to be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused

Nos.1 and 9 did not have any criminal antecedents whereas, both these applicants have criminal antecedents for attempted murder. And, therefore,

the bail may not be granted to them and that their case and has to be differently viewed.

After having considered the entire submissions made on both sides, I find that accused No. 11 is only involved in one more crime for an offence

punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, in which he was already granted bail. Accused No.7, was intended to be apprehended by the Police and had

escaped from there with the assistance of the other accused. He is involved in three other crimes, for offences under the NDPS Act, and attempted

murder. Moreover, a loss of Rs.5 lakhs was sustained to public property. The 11th accused, therefore, is entitled to be released on bail, since he is

almost similarly placed by accused Nos.1 and 9, who were already granted bail. But, the 7th accused, whom the Police officers had come to

apprehend, is definitely not entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, B.A.No.1149 of 2021 is dismissed, while B.A.No.1394 of 2021 is allowed and the 11th accused is directed to be released on bail on

the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 PM, for a period of three months or till filing of the

final report whichever is earlier.

(ii) He shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the jurisdictional court.

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.