Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 CRIME NO.1989 OF 2021 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.10: BAVA U., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.UMER, DARUSSALAM, PALLIPPARAMBU, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 541 BY ADVS. SUNNY MATHEW NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS & STATE : 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682 031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 101 BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, THE COURT ON 28.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------- B.A.No.879 of 2023 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2023
ORDER
Petitioner seeks for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the 10th accused in Crime No.1989/2021 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.662/2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad.
3. The prosecution alleges that on 15.11.2021, one Sanjith, who
was an active worker of RSS was murdered by accused 1 to 12, on the basis of a conspiracy to eliminate him due to political rivalry. Pursuant to the conspiracy, accused 1 to 5 waited for Sri.Sanjith to arrive and when along with his wife arrived there on a motor cycle, they were restrained and attacked with swords as a result of which the said Sanjith died. Petitioner as the 10th accused was arrested only on 05.05.2022 and has
been in custody since then. The earlier application filed by him was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2022 in B.A.No.6431/2022.
4. Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been in custody since May 2022 and
therefore further detention would amount to punishment before conviction. It was also contended that other than a mere allegation that petitioner was a conspirator, there is nothing to connect him with the crime and therefore bail ought to be granted to him.
5. Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General
of Prosecution vehemently opposed the application and submitted that petitioner was one of the kingpins of the conspiracy to murder Sri.Sanjith and therefore, if he is released on bail, there is every chance of the witnesses being influenced. It was also pointed out by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that there is no change of circumstances pursuant to the earlier order of this Court rejecting bail to the petitioner and therefore petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. Petitioner is alleged to be the mastermind of the crime. He had absconded immediately after the incident on 15.11.2021 and was
apprehended only on 06.05.2022 i.e. after about six months. The statement of all witnesses speaks about the involvement of the petitioner as the main conspirator. In the earlier order rejecting bail, this Court had observed that the presence of the petitioner outside itself may lead to influencing the various witnesses and that releasing him would expose the
petitioner himself to a threat of his life. Various reasons have been mentioned in the order in B.A.No.6431/2022 for rejecting the bail. All those reasons still holds good and there is no change of circumstances, warranting the grant of bail.
8. The lapse of three more months since earlier dismissal of bail application, by itself cannot be treated as a change of circumstances in the present case due to the gravity of the crime committed.
9. Petitioner's presence is allegedly intimidating to the witnesses
and there is the seeming possibility of the locality becoming tense. As an alleged “king conspirator” his release, before trial takes place, would be prejudicial to the entire prosecution case as apprehended by the prosecution. Material has also been allegedly collected to prove the active role of the petitioner in the crime. Apart from the above circumstances, petitioner had immediately after the incident, absconded. All these factors weigh against the petitioner. In view of the above, I find no merit in this bail application and the same is dismissed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM