Sajeeb @ Velli Sajeeb vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This is the second application filed before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

The Petitioner herein is arrayed as the first accused in S.C No.260/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No. 2414/2020 registered by Venjaramoodu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 109, 294(b), 341, 302, 201, 118, 120, 212 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Eight other persons are accused along with him in the crime.

The prosecution case is that, based on a pre-existing rivalry between two political parties, on 30.08.2020, at about 11:30 pm, the accused murdered the deceased and injured another person, who also succumbed to the injuries. The case is infamously known as the Venjaramoodu double murder. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. John.S. Ralph argues that the petitioner is innocent of the charges levelled against him. He argues that the petitioner had only exercised his right of private defence when he was attacked, for which a countercase has been registered, and committal proceedings are going on. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2020, and since then, he has been in custody. Even the documents that are to be given to him are not supplied, and as an under-trial prisoner, the petitioner is put to all kinds of difficulties in defending his case properly. It is also pointed out that some of the accused are already released on bail and that A2 and A3 have already been convicted for other crimes and are undergoing sentence. The petitioner also points out that even according to the report of the Court concerned, the trial will take a long time as 184 witnesses are cited in the case apart from the number of pending cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he had co-operated with the trial and was even ready to proceed with the trial during vacation. It is submitted that it is almost four years since the petitioner was detained. It is also submitted that the counter case, SC No.685/2023 was transferred to the Court concerned and the trial of the same is also to be held simultaneously. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of the trial getting over any time soon is impossible. Learned counsel therefore submits that he may be granted bail imposing suitable conditions.

The Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is the mastermind of having arranged all others, he led the conspiracy to commit a double murder in a pre-planned manner with a motive, and there is clear proof of the conspiracy hatched by the first accused. There is ample proof for the charges levelled against him, and he also has two other antecedents, one under Section 324 IPC and another under Section 307 IPC. Given the heinous nature of the offence, the petitioner may not be released on bail. The prosecution does not cause any delay in the trial. It is also pointed out that the presence of the accused itself can create havoc in the area; witnesses are also of the same area, and the trial will surely be obstructed if the petitioner is released on bail. He also pointed out there would be a threat to the life of the petitioner if he is released on bail as a double murder was committed by him out of political rivalry. It is further submitted that the petitioner is charged with very serious offences and that he had also committed a crime while he was in jail and an FIR has been registered against him. Going by the antecedents reported against the petitioner he should not be granted bail, despite the length of detention being four years. It is also submitted that the intelligence report suggested that there is a threat to his life and that the life of the defacto complainant in Crime No. 1628/2020 if he is released on bail. The Prosecutor also submitted that the delay in trial is due to the acts of the first accused.

The defacto complainant, who appeared for the wives of the deceased, submitted that the accused has criminal antecedents, he is politically influential, the witnesses are the common people of the area who will certainly be influenced or intimidated, the CCTV footage proves the charge alleged against the petitioner and at least till the main witnesses are examined, the petitioner should not be released on bail, as a fair trial is likely to be adversely affected.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on all sides.

A report was called for from the Court concerned as to the number of adjournments sought on behalf of the first accused. It was reported that the case was adjourned on three occasions at the request of the first accused namely on 18.3.2024, 19.3.2024 and 29.4.2024.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the 'B' Diary shows that there were no adjournments sought by him but the examination was deferred. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.8.2020, which means almost four years. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Utter Pradesh (2024 KHC OnLine 6380) if the alleged office is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously and where a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose the bail of the accused under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious. The bail, cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. It is also held that once it is obvious that a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period, Courts would be obligated to enlarge them on bail. As stated above, taking note of the length of the detentions and also the principles of law stated by the Honourable Supreme Court and as prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

“(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all posting dates without fail, except specifically exempted by the trial court;

(iii) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvananthapuram District except to comply with condition No.(ii) or to comply with any court conditions;

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence any witness in the aforementioned crime;

(v) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail;

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.2414 of 2020 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may apply to the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.”