IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 703 of 2010()
1. BHUPATHI, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 703 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner, Bhupathi, the accused in Crime No. 26 of 2010
of Erumely Police Station seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case is that the petitioner
committed the offence under Sections 304 and 308 of the Indian
Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 15-1-2010 and he was
remanded to judicial custody.
2. On 6-1-2010, 37 pilgrims started their journey in a goods
lorry from Nandigram in Krishna District in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. They intended to go to Sabarimala for “makaravilakku”.
They were travelling via Shree Sailam, Mahanandi, Dharmasthala
and Mysore. On 12-1-2010, at about 12 noon, they arrived at
Erumeli. After “petta thullal”, by about 6 P.M., they started from
Erumeli. From the inception of their journey, Abdul Salim was driving
the vehicle. While starting from Erumeli, Abdul Salim said he was
sleepy. The “Guruswami” directed the petitioner, a pilgrim in the
group and a driver by profession, to drive the vehicle. After some
B.A. NO. 703 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
time, at a place called “Kanamala atti valavu”, it would appear that
the driver lost control of the vehicle. It hit against a revetment and
capsized.
3. In the accident, 11 persons died and 15 persons were
injured.
4. In the goods lorry, 37 persons were travelling. Sand was
partly filled in the platform of the lorry and about 10 sacs filled with
sand were also placed there, probably to avoid jerks. The lorry was
covered with a Shamianah for the convenience of the passengers.
When the accident took place, the sand and the structure of the
Shamianah fell on the pilgrims, which contributed to the gravity of the
accident.
5. The inspection report of the Joint Regional Transport
Officer, Kanjirapally shows that the accident occurred not due to any
mechanical defect of the vehicle.
6. From the case diary, it is seen that another lorry carrying
pilgrims was also following the lorry driven by the petitioner.
B.A. NO. 703 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
7. It would appear that pilgrims from other States are using
goods vehicles for their journey to Sabarimala and other places. The
Motor Vehicles Act does not permit passengers being taken in goods
vehicle. How could the lorry carrying passengers cross the border
of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala without any objection from
any authority ? It is true that if the pilgrims are intercepted in Kerala
and prevented from continuing their journey in goods vehicles, it
would cause hardship to them. But that is not a sufficient
explanation for the transgression of the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and Rules. Shutting eyes to the violation also would not
constitute a final solution to the problem. I think the Government
would be able to deal with the problem by communicating with the
neighbouring States so that effective methods could be evolved. If
the goods vehicles carrying pilgrims from other States are not
allowed to cross the border of the respective States, it would be an
effective solution to the problem. The neighbouring States could be
requested not to allow such vehicles to cross the border of those
States. Adequate publicity could also be made to the effect that
under no circumstances, the pilgrims would be allowed to travel in
goods vehicles to Sabarimala and other pilgrim centres.
B.A. NO. 703 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
8. The Bail Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by
the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Kanjiriappally and by the
Sessions Judge, Kottayam, respectively as per the orders dated 19th
January and 28th January 2010. The investigation of the case has
progressed thereafter. The learned Sessions Judge held that the
correctness of the address furnished by the petitioner is to be
ascertained. Before this Court, the petitioner has produced copies of
his electoral identity card and ration card to show his correct
address. The originals of these documents were shown to me for
perusal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think
that the petitioner should be detained further.
9. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a
bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II,
Kanjirapally, subject to the following conditions:
(A)The petitioner shall report before the investigating
officer between 9A.M. and 11 A.M. on the first Monday
of every month, till the final report is filed or until
further orders;
B.A. NO. 703 OF 2010
:: 5 ::
(B)The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;
(C)The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
(D)The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge
in any prejudicial activity while on bail;
(E)In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed as above.
The Registry will communicate a copy of this Order to (1) the
Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Kerala ; (2) the
Secretary to Government, Department of Transport and (3) the
Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/