IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4676 of 2008()
1. SURESH, S/O. MOHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SHYJU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/07/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------------------
B.A. No.4676 OF 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 143, 147,
148, 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 427, 201 read with Section 149 IPC,
Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of
Arms Act. According to the prosecution, petitioner along with other
accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons
and with a common object of commit murder and other offences
trespassed into a cassette shop run by the deceased Ajeesh and
caused fatal injuries to him on 06.03.2006 and he succumbed to
the said injuries. A crime was registered against the petitioner and
others (total 11 accused) on the basis of a statement given by an
eye witness. After inflicting the injuries, the accused destroyed the
cassette shop and also the provision shop of the father of the
deceased by throwing bomb.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though
the petitioner was available in the locality and he is an auto
rickshaw driver by profession and the incident allegedly occurred as
B.A.4676/2008
2
early as on 06.03.2006, he was not arrested until after 2 = years.
He was arrested only on 11.05.2008. According to him the
petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but another person was
shown as the accused but later the petitioner was implicated in the
offence as 6th accused. It is also submitted that the 4th accused was
granted bail by this Court as per the order dated 30.05.2008 in
B.A.No.3323/2008. It is also submitted that charge sheet has
already been laid and the trail is going on, and the case against the
other accused were tried, and Accused Nos.8, 10 and 11 were
acquitted. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays that he may
be granted bail.
4. This petition is vehemently opposed. Learned Director
General of Prosecution submitted that the manner in which the
offence is committed, shocked the conscience of the public. This
happened in the broad day light. Eleven persons trespassed into the
shop of the deceased Ajeesh armed with deadly weapons,
committed various offences and they also destroyed the shop of the
deceased as well as his father by throwing bombs. Thereafter
accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 were absconding. They could not be
arrested for about 2 = years. They were arrested only recently on
B.A.4676/2008
3
11.05.2008. The trial against the co-accused is over except accused
Nos.8, 10 and 11 and other accused were convicted. But, the case
against the absconding accused could not be proceeded with.
5. It is also submitted that the 4th accused obtained an
order from this Court by making false representations and
suppressing material facts. Reference was made to Order in
B.A.No.3323/2008, it is pointed out that the said petition was filed
by the 4th accused, suppressing the fact that the offence include
offence under Section 302 IPC. It was also alleged in that petition
that the 4th accused was arrested as early as on 06.05.2008, but he
was arrested only on 11.05.2008. The respondent is taking steps to
cancel the bail which was fraudulently obtained from this Court and
hence, it was submitted that granting of bail to the 4th accused may
not be made a ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. The 4th accused as well as the petitioner and the 1st
accused were absconding for a long period and non bailable
warrants were issued from the Court. Learned D.G.P. also submitted
that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will not be possible to
arrest the 1st accused who is still absconding, and it is likely that the
petitioner will tamper with evidence by influencing or threatening
B.A.4676/2008
4
witnesses.
On hearing both sides I am satisfied that it may not be fit to
grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, taking into consideration
the various submissions made by the learned D.G.P. The fact that
the 4th accused was granted bail cannot be made a ground to grant
bail to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of this case, especially
since learned D.G.P. submitted that steps are being taken to cancel
his bail. The fact that the petitioner requires treatment also, in such
circumstances, does not persuade me to grant bail to him, since
arrangements for treatment can be made available to him even
during detention.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac