High Court Kerala High Court

Sunil (Ai) vs State Of Kerala (Crime No.361/07 … on 13 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sunil (Ai) vs State Of Kerala (Crime No.361/07 … on 13 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7564 of 2007()


1. SUNIL (AI),S/O.LAKSHMANAN ASSARI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AJMUDEEN (A2),S/O.SHAMSUDEEN,
3. SHAFEER (A3),S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED,
4. VIJU CHELLAPPAN (A4),S/O.CHELLAPPAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO.361/07 OF
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALAN PAPALI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :13/12/2007

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
              -------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007
               -------------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 13th day of December, 2007

                                ORDER

Application for regular bail. The petitioners are accused

1 to 4. Altogether, there are four accused persons. They face

allegations in a crime which was initially registered, inter alia,

under Sec.302 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, the

Section of offence has been altered to Sec.304 of the IPC.

Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed

yet.

2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is

that they were proceeding on two motor-cycles on the evening

of 31/10/07. They allegedly picked up a quarrel with some

others at a bus waiting shed near the place of occurrence in

this case. About that incident, another crime has later been

registered. After the incident in that case, the four petitioners

herein were moving away from the said scene of the crime in

two motor-cycles. Allegedly on receiving information from the

persons, who were involved in that incident at the bus waiting

B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007 -: 2 :-

shed, the deceased in this case and others came on to the road

and allegedly wanted to obstruct the escape of the accused

persons. There, it is alleged that the deceased was knocked

down and attacked by the petitioners who were proceeding on

two motor-cycles. The deceased and others with him suffered

injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Accused No.2

was arrested on 1/11/07. In fact, the Case Diary shows that he

was intercepted and detained at the scene of the crime itself by

others. Accused No.3 was arrested on 2/11/07 and accused

Nos.1 and 4 were arrested on 12/11/07. They continue in

custody from those dates.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are absolutely innocent. After the incident in the

earlier scene, they were going away from the scene. They were

victims of aggression even in that first incident. While they were

trying to go away from the scene, the deceased in this case and

some others tried to obstruct them and attack them. They, who

were passing on the motor-cycles, were intercepted and the

motor-cycles were pushed down leading to the fall of the

petitioners. Apprehending danger to them, they took to their

heels. The deceased who had come to the scene of the

B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007 -: 3 :-

occurrence with the intention of attacking them had fallen in the

course of the incident and had suffered injuries. In any view of

the matter, the petitioners cannot be said to be liable for any

offence under Sec.302 or Sec.304 of the IPC, submits the

learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, who have

remained in custody from the dates referred above, may now be

enlarged on bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners with

the deliberate intention of attacking the victim and knocking him

down had hit him with the motor-cycle and had indulged in the

acts of violence against him. The petitioners and the victim

belong to two different political parties. A tense law and order

situation prevails in the locality. In these circumstances, the

petitioners may not be released on bail at this stage of the

investigation. If the courts were inclined to grant regular bail to

the petitioners, some further time may be granted to the

Investigator to complete the investigation. The presence of the

petitioners at the scene of the crime may be excluded by

appropriate directions in the interests of maintenance of law and

order in the locality.

B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007 -: 4 :-

5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. As the

reasons which prompted the Investigating Officer to alter the

Section from Sec.302 to Sec.304 of the IPC was not very clear to

this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to place

the Case Diary to make detailed submission. I am yet to find

satisfactory reasons for the Investigating Officer to reduce the

Section of offence from Sec.302 to Sec.304 of the IPC at this

stage of the investigation. That subtle discretion should

normally not be exercised by the Investigating Officer at this

early stage of the investigation. Be that as it may, I take note of

the totality of the circumstances in this case. I am of opinion

that subject to appropriate conditions which shall allay the

apprehension aired by the learned Public Prosecutor and

safeguard the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious

investigation, the petitioners can be granted regular bail subject

to conditions.

6. In the result:

(a) This application is allowed. The petitioners shall be

released on bail on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall not be released from custody on

B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007 -: 5 :-

the strength of this order prior to 27/12/2007. The Investigator

shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the

investigation.

(ii) The petitioners shall execute bonds for Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and

Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three

months from the date of their release from custody and

thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in

writing to do so.

(iv) During the said period of three months, the petitioners

shall not enter the jurisdiction of Chadayamangalam Police

Station without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate,

except for the purpose of complying with Condition No.(iii)

above.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

accused No.4 wants to attend a meeting of the Nilamel Grama

Panchayat for election of its President at 11 a.m. on 17/12/2007.

He prays that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure

B.A. NO. 7564 of 2007 -: 6 :-

that he is able to participate in the said meeting.

8. There shall be a direction that the petitioner No.4/

accused No.4 shall be permitted to attend that meeting with

necessary police escort. Arrangement to that effect shall be

made by the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, Kottarakkara.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge