IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4109 of 2007()
1. PRAKASH KUMAR,S/O.SADASIVAN,
... Petitioner
2. RENJU VARGHESE,NALLEPPARAMBIL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING S.H.O
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4109 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
Application for regular bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and
2. Altogether there are four accused persons. The crux of the
allegations is that the defacto complainant, who was travelling in a
car stopped his car on seeing a number of persons assembled on the
public road. The car was stopped. The driver was pulled out of the
car. The occupants in the car as well as the driver were assaulted.
The accused allegedly went away with the car and they abandoned
the car some where and allegedly removed the C.D. and an amount of
Rs.20,000/- which was allegedly available in the car. The incident
took place on 29.4.2007 at midnight. The defacto complainant
lodged the complaint before the police on the next day by about 9
a.m. only. Four accused persons were named. The third accused was
allegedly an advocate, who was specified by name. But later, on the
plea that a mistake was made by the defacto complainant in the
identification of the third accused, the said advocate was removed
from the array of accused and a different person was included as the
B.A.No. 4109 of 2007
2
third accused. Accused 1, 2 and 4 have already been arrested. A4 has
already been released from custody. The petitioners are continuing in
custody from 5.5.2007 (A1) and 30.4.2007 (A2) respectively.
1. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are absolutely innocent. The real incident did not take place in the
manner alleged by the prosecution at all. On that night there was an
accident, in which the vehicle in which the defacto complainant was
travelling, had knocked down the 4th accused. The 4th accused had
suffered injuries. The defacto complainant sped away without stopping
the vehicle. The vehicle was followed by the 4th accused and some
others, who had witnesses the occurrence. Apprehending that they will
be caught, they had abandoned the car and ran away. The police is
blindly supporting the defacto complainant. Realising their
helplessness, the accused filed a private complaint on 2.7.2007. The
same has been referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In that the real
incident had allegedly been narrated. The police have now hurriedly
come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the 4th accused is false
and that the complaint filed by the defacto complainant is correct. There
are too many loose ends in the prosecution version. Why the complaint
B.A.No. 4109 of 2007
3
was not filed by the defacto complainant immediately after his vehicle
was thieved and taken away by the miscreants is not revealed. The
defacto complainant was allegedly taken to the same hospital, where the
4th accused had already been admitted earlier. Pointed attention on these
aspects has not been riveted by the Investigating Officer. At any rate,
the accused had been continuing in custody for a long period of time.
They may now be enlarged on bail, submits the counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application on the ground that
accused 1 and 2 have questionable antecedents. The third accused
subsequently arrayed has not so far been arrested. In these circumstances
the petitioners may not be granted bail now, submits the Prosecutor.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Prosecutor in detail. As my curiosity and doubts were aroused the
Prosecutor was directed to produce both the case diaries. I shall at this
stage scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the
acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected.
I do find that there are many loose ends in the prosecution version urged. In
any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be enlarged on
bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
B.A.No. 4109 of 2007
4
5. In the result:
1) This application is allowed.
2) The petitioners shall be released on bail on the following terms
and conditions.
(a) They shall execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to be satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate.
(b) They shall make themselves available for interrogation before
the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on all Mondays and
Fridays for a period of three months from the date of their release.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm