Marshel Kottayil @ Chimbu vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1721 of 2022 of Kunnicodu Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 294(b), 354, 308, 506, 324 and 427 IPC.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 30.11.2022 at about 7.45 PM, the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod after trespassing into her house and thereby caused injuries and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that the petitioner destroyed the wind shield of the car which was parked in the residence of the de facto complainant. Crime was registered in such circumstances and as part of the investigation of the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2022 and since then he has been under judicial custody. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

Heard Sri.P.Sivaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seena C., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the petitioner are relatives and there exists certain disputes relating to their properties. There are cases and counter cases registered by the police as part of the disputes. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a case with false allegations, consequent to the rivalry between the parties. It is further pointed out that, investigation in this case is already over and final report filed. The matter is now pending before the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Kollam as S.C.No.176 of 2023 and therefore, there is no purpose in keeping the petitioner under detention. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor would strongly oppose the aforesaid contention. It is pointed out that, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the petitioner is a person having criminal antecedents and he is involved in seven other cases which includes offences under Sections 307, 326 IPC etc. In addition to that, the proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) (KAAPA) Act, 2007 are also being taken against him. In such circumstances, it was pointed out that, the petitioner being a habitual offender, bail cannot be granted to him.

I have gone through the records. It is seen that the details of the criminal antecedents furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor indicates that he is a habitual offender. However, the fact remains that he is under custody since 01.12.2022. Final report is already submitted. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, even though he is involved in several other cases, bail can be granted to him considering the fact that he has been under judicial custody for more than six months. As far as the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor with regard to the probability of him being included in other offences, stringent conditions can be imposed.

In the result, this bail application is allowed, subject to following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Friday until further orders.

(iv) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

(vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vii) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. It is further clarified that, the authorities shall be at liberty to continue the proceedings against the petitioner for KAAPA and also to move for cancellation of bail in other cases, if they choose to do so.