SANTHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in B.A.No.8581 of 2016 is the 10th accused in Crime No.1297 of 2016 of the Mararikulam Police Station, registered under Sections 120(B), 342, 323, 324, 506 (ii) and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner in B.A.No.8652 of 2016 is the 12th accused therein, and the petitioner in B.A.No.8654 of 2016 is the 6th accused in the crime. All the three petitioners seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. All the petitioners were arrested by the police as part of investigation on 24.11.2016. Their application for bail was dismissed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Alappuzha on 25.11.2016.

(2.) The prosecution case is that as part of a conspiracy hatched by thirteen accused including these petitioners, they illegally confined the defacto complainant, Rajeesh at his house for hours from 9.00 p.m. on 20.11.2016 with the object of extracting money from him, they assaulted him severely, and threatened him and his friend Babu, who came there with money in a car, and the accused committed robbery of a huge amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs from the possession of the complainant and his friend Babu. On a perusal of the Case Diary, I find that investigation is vigorously going on. There is report regarding the present stage of the case by the Investigating Officer. This report shows that the actual acts of offence were committed by the accused Nos.1 to 7, but the police could collect materials proving the complicity of these petitioners also as conspirators. Ofcourse, the FI Statement shows the presence of the petitioners at the place of incident. But, the complaint does not contain definite allegation of overt acts by all the members who came there. The police report shows the involvement and complicity of the accused Nos.1 to 7 in the alleged acts of offence. Whether the accused Nos.10 and 12 had any involvement or complicity as conspirators, or otherwise, is a matter for thorough probe during trial. But as regards the accused Nos.1 to 7, the police report contains definite materials showing their complicity in the alleged acts of offence including illegal confinement, assault, and robbery amounting to dacoity. The police report also shows that the accused Nos.1 to 4 are involved in so many crimes. Their antecedents are quite bad. Anyway, they are not applicants here. However, the involvement of the 6th accused, who is the applicant in B.A.No. 8654 of 2016 is very much revealed by the prosecution records. On a perusal of the entire materials, I find that the circumstances of the accused Nos.10 and 12 are different from that of the other accused including the 6th accused. In the above circumstances where definite materials are yet to come to prove the actual involvement of the accused Nos.10 and 12 in the alleged acts of offence, I feel it appropriate to grant them bail on very strict conditions. But, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 6th accused whose complicity in the actual acts of offence is revealed by the prosecution records. It is definite that if the 6th accused is granted bail, it will adversely affect investigation. Continued detention of the 6th accused in custody is felt absolutely necessary in the above circumstances.