Petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.322 of 2014 of the Nedumangad Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 387 r/ w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act, is in custody since 28.03.2014 and has filed B.A.No.3407 of 2014. Petitioner is also accused in Crime No.133 of 2014 of the Aruvikara Police Station for the offences under Secs.395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act, is in custody since 28.03.2014 and seeks bail in B.A.No.3407 of 2014.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications.
It is submitted that in Crime No.322 of 2014, on 02.02.2014 at about 11.30a.m, the first accused made a telephonic call to the de facto complainant to unload hollow bricks and accordingly, the de facto complainant unloaded hollow bricks on 04.02.2014 and when he demanded the price, the first accused put sword on his neck and threatened him. Petitioner and others formed unlawful assembly and committed offences. Hollow brick worth `18,000/- was extorted. The first accused is also involved in the KAAPA. In Crime No.133 of 2014 the allegation is that on 17.03.2014 the petitioner and others blocked the lorries carrying hollow bricks and demanded money. The second accused attacked the de facto complainant with a sword. The third accused robbed key of the lorry and `8,000/- from that vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in Crime No.175 of 2013 of the Aruvikara Police Station involving offences relating to unlawful assembly apart from offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 326 and 367 of the Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Petitioner is an autorikhaw driver and the first accused happened to use that autorikshaw. On that premise the petitioner is implicated. It is further argued that as per the FIS in Crime No.133 of 2014, only six accused are involved but the petitioner is implicated as the 12th accused. Learned counsel submits that the previous applications were dismissed by this Court.
4. It appears from the prosecution case that the petitioner is a member of the gang involving the first accused. Having regard to the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, request for bail cannot be allowed at this stage.
The applications are dismissed. I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of petitioner moving again at a later stage of the investigation.
Sbna True Copy Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
P A to Judge