Jijo vs State Of Kerala

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This petition for regular bail has been filed by the 3rd accused in crime No.1684/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 333, 324(5), 115(2), 118(1), 309(6), r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 .

The prosecution allegation is that, the accused Nos.1 to 3, due to a previous animosity, on 14.12.2024 at 1.30 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. Thereafter, the 2nd accused caught hold on the shoulder of the shirt worn by the defacto complainant and intimidated him after putting a knife on his neck causing injury on his neck. Further, the 2nd accused stabbed the defacto complainant using the knife and when the defacto complainant blocked the said attack by using his hands, he sustained injuries. In the meantime, the 1st accused, broke the digital watch worn on the hands of the defacto complainant and committed mischief by throwing it on the floor. The 1st accused also snatched the gold chain and the bracelet worn by the defacto complainant and also robbed off the silver ring of the defacto complainant. The 2nd accused then grabbed the key of the defacto complainant’s car bearing registration KL-46-Q/7897 and robbed off the said car from the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant along with Rs.7,500/- and ATM cards kept inside the said car and hence caused damage to the tune of Rs.8,25,000/- to the defacto complainant. Thereby, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above.

Heard both sides and perused the available records.

From a perusal of the records, it is discernible that the accusation against the petitioner and the other accused in this case is prima facie well founded. The allegation that the petitioner and the other assailants trespassed into the house of the defacto complaint in wee hours and unleashed violence therein cannot be viewed lightly. The motive alleged for the commission of the offence is that, the defacto complainant did not compensate for the damage caused to the 1st accused’s car which the defacto complainant had taken on rent and met with an accident and sustained total loss. Anyhow, if at all any monetary loss, as alleged was sustained to the 1st accused from the hands of the defacto complainant, the same is not a reason to justify the criminal act attributed against the accused in this case. Of course, an in-depth investigation is highly necessary to unearth the entire details involved in this case. The allegation that the accused committed robbery causing damage to the tune of Rs.8,25,000/- to the defacto complainant makes the matter more compounded.

Anyhow, the petitioner is seen arrayed as the 3rd accused in this case. When compared with the 1st and the 2nd accused the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of offence stands on a lower pedestal. I am not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner also allegedly trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant in wee hours along with the 1st and the 2nd accused. The act of the petitioner in accompanying the 1st and the 2nd accused in the wee hours and trespassing into the house of the defacto complainant itself indicates that he also shared a common intention with the other accused to commit the present offence. However, as already stated no serious overt act is seen attributed to the petitioner. In other words, the main and serious overt acts are attributed to the 1st and the 2nd accused. It was they who allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and robbed off the gold ornaments and car. There is no allegation that the petitioner committed robbery of any articles or items or assaulted the defacto complainant though the offence was allegedly committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused including the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 15.12.2024 and since then he has been in custody. The investigation in this case appears to have crossed its major and crucial part. Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is unwarranted and the same will serve no purpose. Similarly, no criminal antecedents are seen pointed out against the petitioner. Hence considering the days of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the role attributed to him in the commission of offence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on conditions.

In the result, this petition is allowed on the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on he 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.

(2) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Second Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., starting from 11.01.2025 for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

(3) The  petitioner  shall  also  appear  before  the investigating officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(4) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses; or tamper with the evidence.

(5) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

(6) It is made clear that, in the event of a violation of any of the above conditions, the investigating officer is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. In that event, the jurisdictional court shall consider such application and pass appropriate orders.