Shajahan vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

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

Petitioner is the 14th accused in Crime No.1989/2021 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 201, 212, 109 and 118 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 apart from Section 27(3) r/w Section 7(a)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.

According to the prosecution, one Sanjith, who was an active worker of the RSS; was murdered, while he was travelling with his wife on a motorbike. Five accused had, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with dangerous weapons, came in a Maruti car and rammed into the motorbike of the deceased and thereafter hacked him to death. Petitioner is alleged to have procured the swords, which were the weapons of offence, used in the crime and handed it over to the 7th accused, who in turn handed it over to the other accused to commit the murder and thereby the 14th accused is alleged to be directly involved in the offence.

Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was arrested 24.12.2021 and has been in custody since then. It was further submitted that, investigation has been completed and the final report has also been filed and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is not essential. The learned Counsel urged that petitioner is innocent of the allegations and that he is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha , learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of bail and contended that a more accused are yet to be arrested in the crime and since, in respect of accused, already arrested, report had to be filed, a split final report has been submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the crime was heinous and committed by the accused after a conspiracy and in with pre-planned manner. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that the accused may abscond and also threaten and intimidate the witnesses.

I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the statement of the black smith, who had made the swords, given under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.

As per the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, it was alleged that the petitioner had approached the blacksmith four or five months ago, requesting for three long swords and that,he had manufactured the said swords and had handed it over. The aforesaid statement, according to the prosecution, directly connects the petitioner with the crime, since the said swords were used for committing the murder.

Even though the allegation against the petitioner are serious in nature, taking note of the nature of overt act alleged against the petitioner and the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not essential. As a constitutional court, the liberty of the individual cannot be ignored.

Having regard to the various principles of liberty enshrined in the Constitution and explained by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that continuance of the detention of the petitioner may amount to punishment before conviction. Of course, the gravity of offence alleged cannot be ignored. At the same time, the nature of overt tact alleged against the petitioner cannot also be brushed aside.

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every fourth Saturday between 10.00am and 11.00 am.

(c) Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of Palakkad Police Station till the conclusion of trial except for the purpose of participating in the trial and for abiding by Condition (c).

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.