Shemnas vs State Of Kerala And Anr

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1013 of 2020 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 365, 384 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

The applicant, along with three others, in furtherance of common intention, on 03.09.2020, at about 5.00 PM, near a vegetable stall at Kottayam

market, kidnapped the defacto complainant in an auto-rickshaw to an isolated place near the Kodimatha bridge, wrongfully detained him for hours and

demanded Rs.50,000/- as a ransom for his release. He was assaulted and also intimidated at knifepoint and the defacto complainant paid Rs.30,000/-

through his friend to the accused person. On 04.09.2020, the defacto complainant was contacted over the phone demanding the balance amount of

Rs.20,000/- and was also threatened again. That is when he approached the Police to raise the complaint. The applicant was arrested on 04.09.2020

and has been in custody since then. It is submitted that the charge sheet has already been laid on completion of the investigation. And, therefore, the

applicant seeks regular bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant

is a notorious criminal having 11 criminal cases against him. Out of which, he has been acquitted in four, while the rest of the cases are still pending.

Offences involved range from offences under punishable Sections 332, 452 and 308 of the IPC. Considering the antecedents of the applicant, in case,

if he is released on bail, there is every possibility that he may get involved in offences of similar nature. And, therefore, the application for bail is

vehemently opposed.

On hearing the submissions placed on either side, I find that the applicant is a person having criminal proclivity and in case, he is released on bail at

this stage when the trail is to commence, he is definitely likely to get involved in offences of similar nature and there is also a possibility of the

applicant threatening the witnesses, which is definitely a significant consideration at the time of granting of bail. The applicant had earlier kidnapped

the defacto complainant and demanded money and extorted money from him. And, therefore, there is a possibility of his posing a threat to the witness.

Hence, it is not possible to release him on bail. The fact that the co-accused have been released on bail, will not in enable the applicant also to get that

benefit of bail. The final report has already been filed and I am sure that the trial court would expedite the matter and take the trial to its logical

conclusion at the earliest.

The application for bail is dismissed.