Renjith R vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Petitioners in B.A.No.5738/2021 are accused Nos.2 and 4 in crime No.569/2021 of Adoor police station, whereas the 3rd accused has moved

B.A.No.5726/2021. The above crime was registered alleging offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, besides under Section 3(1) of

the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

It is alleged that out of business rivalry, the petitioners along with another had committed destruction of cables in vast area within Parakkode

Exchange limits, causing unlawful loss to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs to the BSNL. The petitioners in B.A.No.5738/2021 were arrested on 26.06.2021,

whereas the third accused was arrested on 11.07.2021. This is the second application for bail moved by accused Nos.2 and 4.

After hearing counsel for the petitioners, this Court has suo motu impleaded the Assistant General Manager, S&M, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Office of the General Manager Telecom, Pathananthitta business Area, Thiruvalla as additional second respondent in both the applications.

I also heard Adv.S.Mathew Philip, Standing Counsel for the BSNL.

After hearing counsel on both sides, eventhough it was alleged that a loss of Rs.40 lakhs was caused to the BSNL, after hearing the learned

Standing Counsel for BSNL, it has come out that actual loss is Rs.2,52,000/- which is the loss of revenue to the BSNL.

It is true that large scale destruction was caused to the cables. Going by the estimation of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, 35,000 metres of

cable and 300 connectors were also destroyed; out of which only 243 meter of cables alone and 3 connectors have been recovered. But the learned

counsel for the petitioners has contradicted this statement with the aid of the remand application of the petitioners. Whatever it may be, the petitioners

in B.A.No.5738/2021 are in judicial custody from 26.06.2021 onwards; they are in custody for nearly 40 days, whereas the 3rd accused is in custody

for nearly 27 days. After reviewing the status of investigation, I do not think that further detention of the petitioners is not necessary. It is true that the

main culprit is still at large. But that is not a valid ground for continuing the detention of the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that these

applications can be allowed.

As noticed earlier, now the loss sustained by the BSNL is estimated Rs.2,52,000/-, as per the estimation submitted by the learned Standing Counsel.

Since offence under Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act is also attracted, the petitioners are liable to deposit their share of loss as condition precedent for

granting bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if two weeks time is granted, they are prepared to deposit the amount.

Therefore, the petitioners shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i) Petitioners shall execute bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional court;

ii) Each of the petitioners shall make deposit of Rs.63,000/- (Rupees sixty three thousand only) before the jurisdictional court within two weeks from the date of their

release;

iii)They shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence;

iv) They shall not leave the country without leave of the jurisdictional court;

v) They shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail;

vi) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/trial court as and when required;

vii)They shall strictly abide the various guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19

pandemic;

viii)If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional court will be a liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

This bail application is allowed as above.