Sangeeth @ Sanju vs State Of Kerala

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for regular bail.

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.1533/2018 of Chengannur Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under

Sections 141, 143, 144, 452, 308, 294(b), 506(ii), 427 read with Section 149 IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that owing to the previous enmity towards the de facto complainant and the injured for having allegedly passed

information to the Police regarding the applicant's involvement in drug peddling, the applicant and the other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly

and in the prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly, committed riot armed with deadly weapons and trespassed into the house

of the de facto complainant, hurled abuses at him, intimidated him and attacked him with a sword. The second accused had allegedly attacked the de

facto complainant with a sword, which he evaded and escaped with an injury to his right eyebrow. Moreover, the accused also committed mischief by

causing damage to the household articles causing a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the de facto complainant. Thus the accused attempted to commit culpable

homicide and mischief. All other accused, except the applicant, have been released on bail. The applicant's application for anticipatory bail was

dismissed by this Court and thereafter he was arrested on 27.10.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. He was, even prior to that, in remand in

connection with another case when he was arrested on 21.5.2019.

The applicant states that he is innocent and that the allegations are not true and there is no particular overt act attributable to him in this crime. Even

though there is an allegation that he was holding a sword, he did not attack the de facto complainant with the sword and it was the second accused

who inflicted the injuries to the de facto complainant and therefore, he may be granted bail.

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

The learned Prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant has eight crimes registered against him for offences ranging from 354,326, 333 to 380 and

308 IPC. And therefore, he may not be released on bail, since there is every possibility that he may get involved in offences of similar nature. The Bail

Application filed by him before the jurisdictional Magistrate was also rejected for the reason that he was a habitual offender involved in several

crimes. The learned Prosecutor points out that proceedings under the KAAPA as well as under Section 107 Cr.PC were also initiated against him.

In answer to that, the applicant would contend that in all other crimes, he has been released on bail, except this one. He is only 24 years of age and

that his mother is ailing and his newborn son is also suffering from some disease which requires medical attention, for which he has produced

documents as Annexures-3 and 4. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to release him on bail. He says that he is willing to abide by any condition

that may be imposed by this Court.

Going through the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the overt act attributed to the applicant is very minimal. The de facto complainant

has not sustained any grave injury. The cut injury was caused to him by the second accused. Under the circumstances, I find that the offence in this

particular crime is not very grave. He has been involved in several crimes and in all those crimes, he has been released on bail also. The fact that he is

involved in other crimes may be a reason for rejection of bail, but, since he has been in custody since 27.10.2020, I find that further incarceration may

not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. The final report also has been filed. To take care of the fact that he has got criminal antecedents,

the applicant can be released on bail on stringent conditions.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

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

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

(ii) He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If he does not have a passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the

jurisdictional court.

(iii) He shall not enter the district of Alappuzha for a period of three months.

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.