ANIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the instant crime No.523/2019 of Chalakudy Police Station which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 395, 323, 324 and 118 r/w 149 of the IPC. One Sunil, who is the brother of A1 (Anil) was having some financial transaction with one Jackson, the son of the defacto complainant in Muscat and the money is allegedly due from the latter to the former. Out of the said animosity, the accused Nos.1 to 6 on 17.06.2019 at about 1.45 p.m., had formed themselves in an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object to cause hurt to the de facto complainant and her family members had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant. The 1 st petitioner (A1) had beat the lady de facto complainant's husband with an iron pipe and thereafter the accused persons had caused damage to various household articles including utensils, almirah, gas stove, television, windows, doors and vehicle parked in front of the house to the tune of B.A.No.5690 of 2019 Rs.5 lakh in the house of the de facto complainant. Further, the accused persons had stolen the CCTV camera installed in the house of the defacto complainant.

(2.) The accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 20.06.2019 and accused Nos.4 and 6 have been arrested on 28.06.2019 and they have been under judicial custody since then. It appears that the accused 5, 8 and 9 are still absconding and have not been apprehended by the Police. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the above said allegations have been falsely foisted on the accused persons and further that the continued detention of the petitioners is no longer necessary in this case. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that originally there are only six persons in the accused array and later, the Police has additionally included accused Nos. 7 to 9 and that accused No.7 was arrested and remanded and thereafter let out on regular bail etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the allegations raised against the petitioners are false and further that having regard to the fact that petitioners 1 to 3 have already suffered detention for the last 50 days and 4th and 6th petitioners have suffered detention for about 42 days, this Court may order to release them on regular bail, subject to any stringent conditions, as their further detention may not be necessary. B.A.No.5690 of 2019