Sanoop. K @ Sanu vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the 6th accused in Crime No.678/2020 of Ottapalam Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under

Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 and r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Subsequently the victim died and offence under Section 302 IPC was

incorporated.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.05.2020 at about 10 p.m, the applicant and the other accused had allegedly attacked the de facto

complainant because of enmity towards him for having a derogatory materials posted against the 2nd accused on the Facebook page, and thus they

had an altercation ensued with a scuffle, and when the brother of the de facto complainant came to his assistance, he too was attacked. There is some

time gap between the attack on the de facto complainant and on his brother. But both these instances are taken as one crime because it occurred

during the course of the same transaction. Therefore, the accused are charged sheeted with a single offence. The specific allegation made against the

applicant is that he was the member of the unlawful assembly which attacked the de facto complainant and his brother. There is no allegation that the

applicant and accused Nos.5 and 11 have used any weapon. The weapons were wielded by the other accused and they had used dangerous weapons

like swords sticks, iron rods etc. and inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased Vinod who succumbed to his injuries on 22.06.2020 due to Multi-organ

Dysfunction Syndrome caused as a result of sepsis which was the result of the injuries he had sustained on vital organs like intra cranial injury, injuries

on the elbow etc. The injuries directly were not responsible for his death. But septicemia had set in because of the injuries that were caused in the

attack which ultimately led to his death. The allegation against the applicant and the accused Nos.5 and 11 is only that they had fisted and kicked him.

Definitely those which ultimately proved to be fatal were caused by the applicant. The police had been able to arrest only the applicant, accused

Nos.1, 2 and 4. The other accused were not available, and they are absconding. Hence, the case against them has split up and the final report was

filed as against the accused who were already arrested.

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

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant points out to the statements of various witnesses and indicates that the applicant's role in the alleged

incident is very minimal. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is not involved in any other crime and has no criminal antecedents.

The learned Public Prosecutor per contra submits that the applicant was a part of the unlawful assembly which had attacked the de facto

complainant and his brother which had resulted in the murder. It is also submitted that the applicant and the other accused are members of SDPI while

the deceased and the de facto complainant are members of RSS, and there are conflicts between them in the locality. In case the applicant is released

on bail, there is every possibility of a flare in the rivalry between the two groups, particularly in view of the impending election, and there is a fair

possibility of yet another crime being committed either by the accused or by the rival gang, and that it would be difficult for the police authorities to

maintain law and order in such circumstances.

Having heard the submissions made on either side and going through the records that are available, I find that the applicant is a person without any

antecedents. Moreover, the overt acts attributed to him are very minimal. He had only inflicted simple hurt to the de facto complainant and his brother.

The fatal injuries were caused by other accused. It is true that some of the accused are still at large, but that alone could not be reason for

incarcerating the applicant endlessly. He was arrested on 12.07.2020 and subjected to custodial interrogation and there is nothing to be recovered from

him. I find that the minimal contribution of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence is to be viewed as a situation favourable to him.

Particularly in view of the fact that he is not involved in any other case and has no convictions to his credit. The fact that there is an impending

election can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.

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

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

(1) He shall not enter the Ottapalam Taluk for a period of two months except for exercising his right of franchise on the date of election.

(2) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

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

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.