John Paul vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the 6th accused in Crime No.993 of 2019 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 364, 118, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

The applicant together with the other accused, formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly

and due to the previous enmity towards deceased Manu, waited for an opportunity to commit his murder and on 19.08.2019, accused Nos, 1 to 4, with

the intent to murder him, wrongfully restrained him outside a bar near Paravoor Junction and the 1st accused allegedly attacked him. Accused Nos. 2

to 6 joined him and thereafter fatal injuries were inflicted on his body. After inflicting the injuries, they allegedly abducted him to Galileo beach on the

western side of Paravoor and he was pulled down from the scooter on which he was abducted, and thereafter he was assaulted again by the

remaining accused Nos.7 to 14, who were summoned to the scene of occurrence. Accused No.6, the applicant was present at both the bar as well as

on the beach and assaulted the deceased. He has a major role in executing the common object of the unlawful assembly of which he was a member.

The applicant states that accused Nos.11, 13, 14 and 15 were released on bail by this Court by different orders. But, the applicant is also similarly

placed and is also entitled to get bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed

the application for bail stating that the applicant is a notorious criminal having two other crimes registered against him for offences inclusive of Section

307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has in his order rejecting the bail of the applicant and the other accused, given a detail of the cases that are

pending against the applicant and the other accused. The applicant had an important role in executing the detention of the common object of the

unlawful assembly, whereas accused Nos.11,13, 14 and 15 were not similarly placed. And, therefore, the application for bail is vehemently opposed by

the learned Public Prosecutor.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I am convinced regarding the complicity of the applicant. A report was called from the Sessions

Court, regarding the present status of the case. It is submitted that S.C.No.1 of 2021 is pending before the II Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha

and that the trial is scheduled to begin on 05.04.2021. There are about 100 witnesses to be examined. The applicant has been in custody since

24.08.2019. Hence, he has been in custody for more than a year now. The trial is likely to last about 3 months, according to the learned Sessions

Judge.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant now submits that because of the intending election to the assembly in Kerala which is to be

scheduled to begin on 06th of April, the trial has been extended further to the 12th of April. And, therefore, it is likely to get protracted further. There

are 100 witnesses to be examined. It may not be possible for the trial court to expedite and dispose of the matter within three months. Unforeseen

circumstances will also have to be taken into consideration. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant may be

released on bail. Regarding the antecedents, it is submitted that a 2011 crime for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, in which the

applicant is acquitted. Another crime is in the year 2016 for an offence under the Arms Act. He is not involved in any other crime. And, therefore,

prays that he may be released on bail.

Considering the submissions on merits, I find that the applicant has been in custody for more than a year now. It was accused Nos. 1 to 4, who

initially inflicted the fatal injuries. The applicant also has inflicted injuries to the deceased. But, his role is less compared to A1 to A4. It is also evident

that he is involved in only 2 crimes in the year 2011 and 2016. Thereafter, he has not been involved in offences of similar nature. And, therefore, it

cannot be said that he is a history-sheeter and is likely to get involved in other crimes during bail. Considering the fact that the trial is likely to get

protracted, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not enter the Alappuzha District for a period of 6 months except for the purpose of the trial.

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

The bail application is allowed.