IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6188 of 2009()
1. JAYAN @ JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6188 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009
ORDER
Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 762 of 2009, Varkala Police Station
seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143,147,
148, 149, 120-B, 109, 341, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. On 23-9-2009, between 5 A.M. and 5.15 A.M., one
Sivaprasad, aged 62 years was murdered near Ayiroor Post Office,
Varkala. He had sustained fatal inuries on his neck, caused by lethal
weapons. Sivaprasad had gone for a morning walk.
3. On the same day, one Ashokan alias Shanon was attacked
with sword by three persons who came on motorbike. He sustained
injuries on his head, abdomen and left shoulder.
4. The distance between the place where Sivaprasad was
murdered and the place where Ashokan was assaulted is hardly 3
BA No.6188/2009 2
Kilometres.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid offences
were committed by the members of a dalit organisation working under the
name and style, Dalit Human Rights Movement (DHRM). Investigation
also revealed that the two incidents took place as a result of common
conspiracy.
6. It is alleged that the first accused Das is the South Zone
Organiser of DHRM. The second accused, Advocate Asokan, is the legal
advisor and leader of DHRM. The other accused persons are workers of
DHRM. DHRM planned several criminal activities at various places in
order to create terror and insecurity among the people and thus to gain
prominence.
7. The petitioner (Accused No. 3- Jayan alias Jayachandran) was
arrested 29-9-2009. He was remanded to judicial custody.
8. Sri. V.G. Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of
Prosecution submitted that 14 accused persons are involved in the
offence. Of them, accused Nos. 1 to 5, 8 to 10 and 12 were arrested. The
BA No.6188/2009 3
other accused persons are yet to be arrested.
9. Sri. Johnson Gomez, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the only material brought out by the prosecution is
that the petitioner had lent his Hero Honda motor bike to his friends, who
are accused Nos. 5,6 and 7. According to the counsel, there is no material
to connect the petitioner with the crime.
10. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the
investigation revealed that the petitioner took part in the conspiracy which
took place at the residence of accused No. 4 , namely, Madhu alias Saji.
The petitioner has provided the motor bike owned by him for commission of
the offence. Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (Sudhi, Mukesh and Thoduve
Sudhi) travelled on the motor bike and attacked Sivaprasad. It is stated
that after the incident, accused No. 9 contacted the petitioner over mobile
phone and gave information about the commission of the offence.
11. The learned Director General of Prosecution also submitted
that the workers of DHRM are involved in the attempt to murder of one
Sabu, while he was engaged in the preparation for the celebration of
Sreenarayana Guru Samadhi. It is pointed out that Varkala Police
BA No.6188/2009 4
registered nine crimes against the workers of DHRM during the last ten
months. The activities of DHRM cause serious threat to the peaceful life of
the people in the locality. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would
adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is most
likely that the petitioner may indulge in criminal activities. The chances of
the witnesses being intimidated and threatened, also cannot be ruled out.
12. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the
petitioner that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the
offence. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are enough materials to
implicate the petitioner as an accused.
13. The offence involved in the case is a heinous one. Sivaprasad
was not involved in any political activities. He had no enemies. There was
no reason to murder Sivaprasad. He became the victim only because he
happened to be at the place where the culprits could conveniently execute
their plan. Serious allegations are made against the accused persons and
the workers of DHRM. It is alleged that they are inclined to cause terror in
the minds of the people. The allegation is that the idea of DHRM is only to
gain importance by indulging in criminal activities affecting the peaceful life
of the people.
BA No.6188/2009 5
14. It is true that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29-9-
2009. That by itself is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. The
investigation is not over. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage,
it would cause adverse impact on the proper investigation of the case. It is
also likely that the petitioner would indulge in criminal activities, intimidate
the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
Before parting with the case, I find it appropriate to point out the
following. Sivaprasad lost his life and Asokan alias Shanon sustained
severe injuries, not because they indulged in any criminal activities. They
were not targeted as such by the accused. The allegation is that some
“human beings” were targeted by them and Sivaprasad and Asokan
happened to be those persons. Whatever may be the ideology of an
organisation, the members of the organisation have no right to cause loss
of life and limb of the citizens. The State is bound to protect the life and
personal liberty of the citizens. Any right thinking person would say that
the family of the deceased and the victim should be adequately
compensated, though any amount of compensation would not be a
substitute for the life of a human being. If the State compensates, it
BA No.6188/2009 6
means the people collectively take the burden of sharing the
compensation. I do not think the people would be unhappy if adequate
compensation is provided to the family of Sivaprasad and to Asokan alias
Shanon. If so, the State also would not find it inappropriate to do so. I
hope the needful would be done by the Government of Kerala.
Registry will communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Kerala.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE