Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant is the third accused in Crime No.459/2015 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.05.2015, five persons including the accused, in furtherance of common intention to commit robbery, at about 11.30 p.m, intercepted a Tamil Nadu Transport Bus on route to Palakkad to Coimbatore in front of the Malabar Hospital at the National Highway and thereafter they forcibly evicted the de facto complainant from the bus, took him to a Bolero car, in which the other accused were waiting and robbed him of Rs.2,35,000/- in cash and also a cheque for an amount of Rs.30,000/- from him.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that there is nothing to prove his complicity that he has been falsely implicated. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in connection with another crime. They have antecedents of having involved in similar cases. They gave confession statements regarding the involvement of the applicant and the others. All accused except A5 have been arrested. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have grave criminal antecedents. It is on the basis of the confession statements that the applicant was arrested and thereafter got identified by the de facto complainant. The applicant states that the confession statement of accused No.1 is not reliable because he has an axe to grind against him. The applicant is a car broker and he had sold the first accused his car on account of the brokerage of Rs.40,000/- is due to him. He demanded the same. The first accused refused to pay that and there was an altercation between them. Keeping that animosity in mind, the first accused has spelled his name to the police, so as to implicate him in this crime falsely. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore he seeks regular bail. He has been in custody from 23.01.2021 onwards.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that apart from the confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 implicating the applicant in this crime, the de facto complainant has also identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the crime and that would be sufficient to prove his complicity. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicant is a person having no criminal antecedents. He has been implicated in this crime solely on the basis of the confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, who have similar antecedents. Moreover, the prosecution also relies on the identity of the applicant by the de facto complainant in the police station during investigation. No TI parade has been conducted, and establishing the identity of the applicant from the police station during investigation may not be sufficient to prove the case against him. Under the circumstances, I find that further incarceration of the applicant is unwanted.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

(2) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

(3) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.