C O M M O N O R D E R

The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), to release the petitioner on bail. In BA No.20/2024, the petitioner is the fifth accused in crime No.886/2023 of the Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, and in BA No.21/2024, the petitioner is the fifth accused in crime No.476/2023 of the Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha. As the petitioner is same in both the bail applications, they are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order.

2. In BA No.20/2024, the gist of the prosecution case is that: on 24.8.2023 at about 4.30 a.m, the accused (five in number) had with an intention to rob money from the defacto complainant, kidnapped and wrongfully confined him. For the said purpose, they had gone to the defacto complainant who was sleeping in his car bearing registration No.KL 29/D 3040 and told him that they wanted to talk with him. At that time, the second accused reached there in another car and the first accused asked the defacto complainant whether he has any dispute with the second accused. The third accused also went in another car with a sword and threatened the defacto complainant. He grabbed the money which was kept at the back seat of his car. At that time, a staff of the defacto complainant went to rescue him. But the accused locked him in the back seat of the car and around 6.00 a.m, the first accused threatened the defacto complainant and asked him to drive the car. The accused 3 and 4 abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language and they went to his shop and took an amount of Rs.24,000/- . Thus, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Secs.506(ii), 323, 342, 324, 365, 368, 395 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The gist of the prosecution case in BA No.21/2024 is that: around 6.40 a.m on 24.8.2023, the accused (six in number) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention attacked CWs1 and 2 who were on motor cycle with sickle in hands and caused injuries to CW1 and committed robbery and decoity. Thereafter, they concealed and destroyed the evidence by dismantling the motor cycle. Thus the accused have committed the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 324, 394, 395 and 201 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard; Sri.Sasith M.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutors.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crimes by the Police due to their animosity towards him. In BA No.20/24, the petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 4.9.2023 and in BA No.21/2024, the petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 15.9.2023. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 175 days. The investigation in the cases is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs State of U.P and another [2012 KHC 4031] to bolster his contention that merely because there is some criminal antecedents against an applicant, the same cannot be taken as a ground to deny bail to the applicant, unless there is a possibility of the applicant fleeing from the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, he prayed that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutors strenuously opposed the applications. The Investigating Officers have filed separate bail objection reports. They have reiterated the gist of the prosecution in both the cases. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is involved in three other criminal cases, namely, crime No.153/2006 of the Kayamkulam Police Station registered for committing the offence under Sec.25 of the Arms Act, crime No.476/2023 of the Kareelakulangar