SIJOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the 3rd accused seeking bail in crime No. 707 of 2018 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner was alleged as participated in a robbery on 31.05.2018 at Puthiyapalam, Olavakkode. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant was proceeding towards Olavakkode in a rented car bearing Registration No. KL-53-J-9053 with an amount of Rs.20 lakhs obtained after sale of gold ornaments weighing 790 gms, at Coimbatore. According to the prosecution, the accused person hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance of that, they intercepted the car in which the defacto complainant was travelling, assaulted him brutally and snatched Rs.20 lakhs, the car and a mobile phone from him. The car robbed from the defacto complainant was later on found abandoned at Vallappara within the jurisdiction of Kuzhalmannam Police Station and accordingly crime No.508 of 2018 under Section 102 Cr.P.C was registered. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Town North Police Station, Palakkad on 02.06.2018 and the offences as aforesaid were incorporated and investigation was pursued with. In the course of the investigation, the defacto complainant had produced a Mobile phone stating that it was obtained from the scene of occurrence. In the investigation held, the mobile phone was found as belonging to one Mr. Nikhil @ Kuttappi who is arrayed as the first accused in the crime on hand. The first accused was arrested on 06.06.2018, and granted bail. The second accused was arrested on 07.06.2018 and was also enlarged on bail. This petitioner is the 3rd accused, who was taken into custody on 12.08.2018 and this application is moved by him seeking regular bail.

(3.) According to Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the crime in question was registered based on totally false and foisted facts. The learned counsel, pointed out material aspects to canvass about the improbability of such an occurrence to happen. According to him, the defacto complainant had only worked at Gulf for sometime as an Electrician and therefore there is no possibility for him to acquire gold weighing 790 gms within the short span of his work there. He has also pointed out the delay in lodging the FIS and in preparing the wound certificate. According to him the incident was allegedly occurred on 31.05.2018 and the FIS was lodged by the defacto complainant only on 01.06.2018, as an after thought. The accident register cum wound certificate, according to the learned counsel was prepared on 02.06.2018 and that can only be taken as a document manipulated by the prosecution to suit the commission of the offences of robbery as alleged by them. Raising the contentions, the learned counsel pleaded for enlarging the petitioner on bail.