Sajad vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC/ST Act' for convenience). The appellant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1167 of 2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, now pending as S.C.1253/2021 before the Special Court under the SC/ST Act. The appellant assails order in Crl.M.P.No.2295/2022 dated 03.10.2022, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the regular bail application filed by the appellant.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Advocate Sasith, who appeared for the defacto complainant, also was heard.

In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 449, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

It is alleged by the prosecution that at 1.11 hours on 28.06.2021, accused 1 and 2, who do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, trespassed upon the house of one Sambath, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community, situated near Mall of Travancore with intention to do away him, after sharing their common intention to do so. Thereafter, in prosecution of their common intention, the 1st accused tried to cause stab injuries to Sambath and he evaded the same and ran inside the kitchen and locked himself. Then accused 1 and 2 break opened the door by using knife and stabbed the above said Sambath on his neck, face and head and on all parts of his body, and thereby caused multiple fatal injuries repeatedly. The prosecution allegation is that accused 1 and 2 separately and jointly caused altogether 93 injuries to Sambath, and consequently he died. The specific allegation against the appellant herein is that he had beaten on the backside of the head of the above Sambath by using a Chappathi roller and ensured his death.

The learned counsel for the appellant pressed for grant of bail on the ground that the custody of the appellant for the purpose of investigation is over since the final report was already filed. Further he has no criminal antecedents.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant zealously opposed grant of bail to the appellant on the submission that the one and only son of the defacto complainant was brutally murdered and thereby the defacto complainant is put in penury and the defacto complainant apprehends highhanded activities from the accused, if he is released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor also shared the same argument and highlighted the fact that this is a case of brutal murder causing 93 injuries and, therefore, the liberal view for granting bail to the appellant cannot be taken in this case. He also submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedents and in the event of his release on bail, he would threaten the witnesses from deposing truth before the Court and would repeat similar offences.

Taking note of all these facts, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application for bail, moved by the appellant herein. The learned Special Judge also referred dismissal of bail application, moved by the 1st accused, by this Court as per order dated 20.06.2022 in B.A.No.1456/2022.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued to contend that the appellant, who is the 2nd accused, has no criminal antecedents; whereas the 1st accused is having criminal antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the report of the investigating officer highlighting involvement of the appellant in Crime Nos.304/2019, 1128/2020 and 1129/2020 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. Further the 1st accused has also involvement in Crime No.304/2019 of Kadinamkulam Police Station.

Thus it appears that the appellant is a person having criminal antecedents and his release on bail shall be a fatal as far as the defacto complainant is concerned. Further, the apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the matter of threat to the witnesses from deposing before the court from the appellant, who has criminal antecedents and apprehension of his involvement in similar crimes again, are matters of serious concern. Therefore, this case requires trial, keeping the appellant in custody.

In view of the matter, I am not inclined to set aside the order impugned. Ultimately, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

However, there shall be a direction to the Special Judge to expedite the trial, at the earliest.