IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6091 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CMP.4118/2008 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO.820 OF 2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- ABIN , AGED 24, S/O JAYARAM, MOOLASSERIL VEEDU, CHIRAKKADAVOM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008 ALONG WITH BA NO. 6155 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------ B.A. Nos.6091 & 6155 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 394 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner in B.A.No.6091 of 2008 is the first accused and the petitioner in B.A.No.6155 of 2008 is the second accused in the crime. According to the prosecution, while the defacto complainant, who is aged 16 years, was coming out of a tutorial in a bicycle, the petitioners blocked him on the road and the first accused snatched the gold chain and the second accused forcibly took his purse containing Rs.150/- and other articles in the pocket. When the act was resisted, the accused also fisted him. 3. The incident occurred on 16.09.2008 and the petitioners were arrested on 18.09.2008. They are in custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident did not take place as alleged. The place of occurrence also is different. No theft is involved. No assault has also taken place. B.A.6091 & 6155 of 2008 2 The first accused was coming out of an internet cafe while the defacto complainant was going into the internet cafe. On seeing the boy, the first accused teased him by stating that he knew why the boy at the young age was going to the internet cafe etc. There was an altercation between them and also a push and pull. But the boy happened to be the son of an Additional Sub Inspector and he informed the matter to the police and his father. 4. The net result was the first accused was arrested on the same day from his house and he was physically manhandled by the police. The second accused, who was nowhere in the picture, who is also a person with criminal antecedents (being involved in other crimes) was also arrested and implicated as the second accused, with ulterior motive. After severely torturing at the police station, first accused was handcuffed and paraded through the street and also taken to his house and all these were done to humiliate and harass him. The police has grudge against the first accused and though the chain is alleged to be stolen and it was allegedly recovered, it was not produced before the court. B.A.6091 & 6155 of 2008 3 Actually the chain was not stolen or lost or recovered through the first accused. A false recovery is also created. 5. It was also pointed out that this Court had directed learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain and confirm whether the defacto complainant is the son of a police official. But it is now reported that instead of the details of the defacto complainant, the details of the accused were ascertained. This is done only with a view to cause further delay in granting of bail. The petitioners are prepared to swear in an affidavit stating that the defacto complainant is son of a police official. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that because of this vengeance, it is likely that the first accused will be falsely implicated in other crimes also since he has been coupled in this crime with a hardened criminal like the second accused, who was not even present at the scene of occurrence. 6. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused is involved in another crime under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act and the case was registered even before registration of this crime. The second accused is a B.A.6091 & 6155 of 2008 4 habitual offender involved in ten criminal cases. Therefore the petitioners are likely to abscond, if bail is granted. It is also submitted that the gold chain was produced on 18.09.2008 before the court. The other allegations against police are denied and it is submitted that though a message was given to get details regarding the defacto complainant's father, by mistake information relating to the accused was furnished. It is also pointed out that there is no whisper about the alleged handcuffing in the bail application. On hearing both sides, I find that further detention of the petitioners may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned. The petitions are allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac