High Court Kerala High Court

Soman vs State Of Kerala on 5 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Soman vs State Of Kerala on 5 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3971 of 2007(S)


1. SOMAN, AGED 5O YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 57,
3. SADAN, AGED 45 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/07/2007

 O R D E R






                                R. BASANT, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                          B.A.NO.3971 OF  2007

               -------------------------------------------------

                 Dated this the  5th day of July, 2007



                                    ORDER

The petitioners are accused 2, 3 and 4 in a crime

registered under Sec.302 of the IPC. In the First Information

Statement, the names of the petitioners do appear; but there

is no allegation of any contumacious act against them. An

F.I.R. was registered as early as on 31/1/06. The alleged

incident had taken place on the night of 28/1/06. In the F.I.R.,

the 1st accused alone is arrayed as an accused. The brother of

the deceased had lodged the First Information Statement.

2. The crux of the allegations in the F.I.R. is that the

deceased, the accused and the petitioners had together in a

very joyous mood in an autorikshaw of one Jayakrishnan to

attend the festival in a local temple. While they were

travelling in the autorikshaw, there was some disagreement

B.A.NO.3971 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

and exchange of words between the 1st accused and the

deceased. The 1st accused is alleged to have beaten/hit the

deceased with a stone. The deceased was left by the side of the

road in the injured condition and all others went home. The

next morning the deceased was found lying at the place where

they left him. He was removed to the hospital. Subsequently,

he succumbed to the injuries after a surgery was allegedly

performed on him. Investigation commenced with the 1st

accused alone on the party array. In the course of investigation,

the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. The principal

accused has been arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioners

apprehend imminent arrest.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in

any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to be

arrested and kept in custody to face an allegation under Sec.302

of the IPC. There is no specific overt act alleged to have been

committed by any of the petitioners against the deceased. At

worst, the allegation can only be that they did not remove the

injured to the hospital after he suffered injuries allegedly at the

hands of the 1st accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners

points out that no one assumed or anticipated the injuries to turn

out to be fatal, even going by the prosecution case. For the

B.A.NO.3971 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

alleged indiscretion committed by the petitioners – that of not

removing a friend who had suffered some minor injuries to the

hospital and for having left him at the place where he was and

for having proceeded to their respective houses, they may not be

compelled to suffer and endure the undeserved trauma of arrest

and incarceration for a capital offence. This is an ideally fit

case where the powers under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can and

ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners, submits the

learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are willing

to co- operate with the Investigators. They shall surrender

before the Investigators and make themselves available for

interrogation for any length of time as may be prescribed by this

Court in the interests of justice reasonably, submits the learned

counsel for the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not make any

concession obviously because of the gravity of the allegation

raised. But called upon to point out and explain the culpable

and contumacious role of the petitioners, I find the learned

Public Prosecutor has not made any submission which can

persuade this Court to feel that the petitioners will even

remotely have to face the charge under Sec.302 of the IPC. The

autorikshaw driver is the only other person other than the

B.A.NO.3971 OF 2007 -: 4 :-

accused and the deceased who had allegedly witnessed the

occurrence. His statement does not specifically indicate any

overt act committed by the petitioners or even sharing of the

common intention/common object to cause the death of the

deceased.

5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that

notwithstanding the fact that the very serious allegation – of

murder has been raised against the petitioners, they are entitled

to the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion

available to this Court. Appropriate conditions can, of course,

be imposed in the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious

investigation.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following

directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 12/7/07. They shall

be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for

Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum

to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m.

and 4 p.m. on 13/7/07, 14/7/07, 15/7/07 and 16/7/07. During this

B.A.NO.3971 OF 2007 -: 5 :-

period it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to keep

themselves in custody, interrogate them and effect recoveries, if

any. Thereafter, the petitioners shall make themselves available

for interrogation before the Investigating Officer on all

Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon until further

orders.

(iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned

Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall

thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to

arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law

as if those directions were not issued at all;

(iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender

on 12/7/07 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released

on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any

sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on

12/7/07.

Sd/-





                                                         (R. BASANT, JUDGE)


Nan/


               //true copy//               P.S. To Judge