Maju Manoj And Ors vs State Of Kerala

Applicants are accused Nos. 3, 7 and 8 in Crime No.1673/2020 of Keezhvaipur Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 447 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Later offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also incorporated

after the accused were arrested on 20.11.2020.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.11.2020 at about 3 p.m. the applicants along with other accused totalling 6 in number allegedly

trespassed into the courtyard of the de facto complainant destroyed the windshield of the Maruti Alto Car that was parked there and also committed

mischief by destroying window panes causing a total loss of Rs.70,000/- to the de facto complainant. The enmity that they had with the de facto

complainant is because the de facto complainant had allegedly informed the law enforcement authorities about the applicants’ engagement in drug

peddling.

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. They are relatives and that there is some dispute in connection with a

false case has been lodged against the applicants and that except for the offence under the Arms Act all the other remaining offences are bailable. It

is submitted that it is only subsequently that the offence under the Arms Act has been incorporated with ulterior motives. The specific allegation is that

one of the accused was holding a sword stick in violation of the Arms Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though there are no specific instructions regarding the antecedents of the applicants, it is admitted as per

the remand report that the applicants have criminal antecedents. Therefore, they may not be granted bail at this stage.

After having heard on both sides, I find that the antecedents alleged against the applicants are all offences which are bailable. In the instant case also

except the offence under the Arms Act, remaining offences are all bailable. It is also pertinent to note that the offence under the Arms Act was

added subsequently. Initially, there were only bailable offences alleged against the applicants. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this

case, I find no reason why the applicants should not be granted bail on stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty

thousand only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following conditions:-

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of the

final report, whichever is earlier.

(ii) They shall not enter the jurisdiction of the police station limits for a period of one month except for complying with condition No.1.

(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses.

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

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.