2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 4712 OF 2022 CRIME NO.157/2022 OF MARAYUR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SOORYA AGED 24 YEARS, MGP.XII.38, ANAKKALPETTY BHAGAM, MICKLEGIRI KARA, PULIKKARAVAYAL, MARAYOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685613 BY ADV C.SREEJITH (ELAMAKKARA)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 BY ADV SMT. SEETHA.S – SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4648/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 4648 OF 2022 CRIME NO.156/2022 OF MARAYUR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SOORYA AGED 24 YEARS, MGP/XII/38, ANAKKALPETTY BHAGAM, MICKLEGIRI KARA, PULIKKARAVAYAL, MARAYOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT , PIN – 685613 BY ADV C.SREEJITH (ELAMAKKARA)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 BY ADV SMT. SEETHA.S -SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4712/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022 These are applications for Regular Bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.157/2022 of Marayur Police Station, Idukki alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 15(4) of the Kerala Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 2007.
3. The prosecution allegation is that, the crime stands registered against petitioner/accused for offence punishable under Sections 45(4) and 19 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that, in violation of an order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the KAAPA Act, the petitioner was found visiting his house situated within the jurisdictional limits of the Idukki Police Station.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner earlier moved an application for before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha but the same was dismissed as per Anx.A1 – order.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, submitted that, the KAAPA proceedings where initiated against the petitioner and there was a direction that the petitioner shall not enter the Idukki district for a period of six months. During the currency of the said order, the petitioner entered the Idukki district and a crime was registered as Crime No.812/2021 of Marayur Police Station and he was again apprehended by the police and was in custody. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for bail before this Court, as per order in B.A. No.980/2022 this Court granted bail to the petitioner with a specific condition that the petitioner shall not violate any order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the KAAPA Act. It is submitted that, the petitioner again entered the Idukki district and committed an offence punishable under sections 294(b), 143, 147, 148, 149, 308, 324 and 341 of the IPC and crime No.156/2022 was registered. Learned Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, submitted that, the crime No.156/2022 was committed within the currency period of the order issued by the KAAPA authority and therefore the present crime was registered as Crime No.157/2022 for violating the conditions in the KAAPA Act. 6. It is seen that, even though this Court has specifically directed in the bail order in B.A. No.980/2022 that petitioner shall not violate any orders passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the KAAPA Act, the petitioner again got involved in another crime, and this Court has rejected the bail application filed as B.A. No.4648/2022 in Crime No.156/2022 as per order dated 24.06.2022. I find no reason to take a different view in the present case also.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.