Shambhu vs State Of Kerala

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 9th accused in Crime No.1601/2020 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 427 and 395 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and also Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.12.2020 at about 9.10 p.m., the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the rest of the accused, committed lurking house-trespass into the jewellery of the de facto complainant and after having wrongfully restrained him and hurled him with abuses and intimidating him, they committed mischief by breaking the glasses in the jewellery and also stole jewellery worth Rs.1.5 lakhs from the shelves and decamped from there.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He was involved in the offence because he is the one who had arranged a car for the 2nd accused to reach the scene of occurrence. He did not go to the occurrence and has also no criminal antecedents and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.

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

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the CCTV camera footages would clearly indicate the involvement of the applicant. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and 8 remained in the Innova car, which used to reach the scene of occurrence. All the rest of the accused had entered the jewellery and committed the offence as alleged against them. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, considering the gravity of the offence committed by him.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is presently completely bedridden in consequence of an accident that took place on 19.01.2021 and that he is not likely to flee from justice and that he is still continuing in the hospital and that the police officers had approached and because of his condition and the fact that he is admitted in the hospital, he could not be arrested. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that it was because of some dispute between the 1st accused's sister and the de facto complainant with regard to money lending business that they were conducting, a false case has been foisted against the applicant and the rest of the accused. Hence, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail.

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I find that the accusation made against the applicant is very grave in nature. He has allegedly committed dacoity along with the rest of the accused and decamped with jewellery worth Rs.1.5 lakh, which is yet to be recovered. Under the circumstances, the applicant cannot be granted the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The fact that the applicant is bedridden, and is not in a position to move around can be considered at the time of arresting the accused. The application is therefore dismissed. In the event of the applicant being arrested, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same day.