AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 1,025 wordsViju Abraham, J.
The above bail application has been placed before me by another learned Judge as per order dated 27.03.2024, in the light of the directions issued in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [2024 (1) KHC 389].
This is an application for Regular Bail.
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1016/2021 of Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 452, 427, 506(ii), 294(b), 212 and 149 of the IPC and Section 20 r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution allegation is that, on account of political rivalry towards Mr. Sandeep Kumar, the deceased, the 1st accused with the intention to kill him hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the petitioner and other accused on 02-12-2021, at about 3 PM, in Room No.215 in JJ International lodge situated in Kuttipuzha Village and all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly on the same day with their common object to kill him and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons such as knife and sword stick. It is further alleged that accused No.1 abused the deceased and pushed him to the paddy field on the same day at 8.05 PM. Thereafter, A2 and the petitioner caught hold the deceased and the 1st accused inflicted severe stab injuries on his chest and back and due to the injury, he died on his way to the hospital. Thereafter, A4 & A5 abused CW20 and tried to kill him by brandishing the swordstick. Thereafter, A1 to A5 trespassed into the stationery shop and a house near to St.Mary's Catholic Church and committed mischief by breaking the bottles in the shop and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 300/-. It is further alleged that A6 harboured A1 to A5 with a knowledge that they will commit murder and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and is in custody from 03.12.2021 onwards. It is further submitted that the allegation that the alleged offence has been committed due to political rivalry, is denied by the petitioner. It is further contended that the final report is already laid and the case is now pending as SC No.157/2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge- IV & Addl. MACT, Pathanamthitta. It is further contended that since the charge sheet is already laid, further detention of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of the investigation. It is also submitted that though the petitioner moved B.A. No.4079/2022 before this Court seeking bail, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Later the petitioner has approached this Court again filing B.A.No.8316 of 2022, which was also rejected as per Annexure A1 order.
The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the deceased was attacked due to political enmity and later he succumbed to injuries at the hospital. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted on the strength of the post-mortem certificate that the murder has been committed in a very brutal manner inasmuch as there are 23 anti mortem injuries noted and that the death of the deceased was due to penetrating injuries sustained to the chest. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an active role in the commission of the offence and that he has very serious criminal antecedents of having involved in 3 other crime. The details of which are as follows:
Crime No.1444/2021 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC of Ettumanoor Police Station.
Crime No.1455/2021 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
Crime No.778/2021 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 365, 392, 341, 447, 506(ii), 323, 324 and Section 34 of the IPC of Haripad Police Station.
The learned Pubic Prosecutor further submitted that Crime No.778/2021 of Harippad Police Station was regarding kidnapping of one Arun Mohan and he was wrongly detained at the JJ international lodge by the accused and the detainee had witnessed the whole criminal conspiracy for murdering the victim by the accused. It is also submitted that accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have serious criminal antecedents and further that A1, A2, A3 and A4 are all accused in Crime No.1444/2021 of Ettumanoor Police Station and 1455/2021 of Gandhinagar Police Station. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance that the accused person may threaten or influence the witness and also may flee to some other states in order to evade the trial.
A report was called for from the trial court concerned, wherein the trial Judge has reported that the trial of the case will be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon the learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the report is ready and the same will be forwarded to the court concerned at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today.
Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner and also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the apprehension raised by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside. This Court has considered all these aspects while passing Annexure A1 judgment. Therefore, taking into consideration the brutal way by which the victim was murdered and the active role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and also taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
There will be a direction to the State to see that the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is made available to the court concerned at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of three weeks, so that the trial of the case could be completed without any further delay.
