Rajkumar @ Antony Raj vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.220/2023 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad District, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 449, 392 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the deceased Prabhakaran was living in House No.IX/201 of Pudupariyaram Panchayath. Accused 1 and 2 had acquaintance with Prabhakaran. On 03/04/2023 at 11.25 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to commit robbery from the above house took Prabhakaran in an autorickshaw from near Olavakkode railway station to his house. Thereafter, they consumed liquor and accused Nos.1 and 2 while committing robbery murdered Prabhakaran, and thereby committed the above offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been detained since 01/04/2023 and that there is no evidence against him. The CCTV footage is wrongly relied upon and the arrest was after three days on the basis of the evidence of an autorickshaw driver, there are no antecedents reported against the petitioner and prayed for granting bail.

Learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri Suresh opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is not a native of Kerala and that he is leading a vagabond life. The CCTV footage and the identification of the accused would show the evidence in support of the charge. He had absconded after the incident. The petitioner does not even have an Adhar card and it would be very difficult to even serve a summons on him. The motive of the crime is also to be noted and a partly decomposed body was recovered after the incident.

Considering the rival submissions and the serious allegations against the petitioner of having committed murder and also committing robbery from the house by a person who is leading a vagabond life. The apprehension of the prosecution while opposing bail that the petitioner is likely to abscond is well founded. Though the charge sheet has been filed in the case, the chance of the petitioner adversely interfering with the trial cannot be ruled out. It was also found that there were 30 fresh ante mortem injuries on the body and the postmortem report suggests that the death was due to the combined effect of the blunt and stab injuries sustained on the chest and head of the deceased. It is on the basis of a clue received from an autorickshaw driver about the suspected person and also the CCTV footage of the route that enabled the identification of the accused. I also feel release of the petitioner at this stage would adversely affect the trial as the accused does not even have a specific residential address as he is living a vagabond life. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.