Sreenath ML vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC/ST (POA) Act' for convenience) challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.2315/2022 in S.C.No.500/2022 on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thiruvananthapuram.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Notice served upon the defacto complainant. Defacto complainant appeared and opposed grant of bail.

The  appellant  herein  is  the  7th   accused  in  Crime No.2453/2021 of Pothencode Police Station, where the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120(b), 294(b), 341, 324, 326, 449, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

The prosecution allegation is that at 2 p.m on 11.12.2021, accused Nos.l to 11 hatched a conspiracy to do away one Sudheesh and in prosecution of the said common object, they reached Kalloor Church Junction, Thonnakkal in motorbikes and autorickshaw and attacked the above said Sudheesh. When he found shelter inside a house nearby, the accused break opened the door and wrongfully restrained the above said Sudheesh and attacked with dangerous weapons and in consequence thereof the above Sudheesh died.

The prosecution would allege that the 1st accused used an axe and accused Nos.2 and 3 used choppers to cause cut injuries on the back, hand and legs of the victim. The further allegation is that accused No.9 stabbed on his back using a knife. The specific allegation against the appellant/7th accused is that he had used a knife and caused cut injury to the victim. Similarly, allegations are there against other accused also.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued at length to canvass regular bail to the appellant on the submission that the Special Court granted bail (in Crl.M.P.No.2010/2022) to accused No.10 as per common order in Crl.M.P.No.2090/2022, Crl.M.P.No.2009/2022 and Crl.M.P.No.2010/2022, while dismissing the regular bail plea at the instance of the appellant/7th accused as well as the 3rd accused. Annexure 3 is the copy of the said order. As per the order, the learned Special Judge dismissed Crl.M.P.Nos.2090/2022 and 2009/2022 filed by accused Nos.3 and 7 respectively, while granting bail to accused No.10. Going through Annexure 3 order, the learned Special Judge observed that accused Nos.3 and 7 are habitual offenders, involved in multiple crimes and inasmuch as accused No.10 is concerned, he had no criminal antecedents and he is aged only 22 years. In the said circumstances, bail was granted to him.

The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the learned Special Judge granted bail to accused No.6 also as per order dated 15.09.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2155/2022, produced as Annexure 4. Annexure 4 also would go to show that the Special Judge granted bail to 6th accused, whose status is on par with accused No.10.

The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of bail in this case and he submitted that all the accused, except accused Nos.6 and 10, are habitual offenders and they brutally murdered the above said Sudheesh and accused Nos.2 and 3 cut and removed the left leg of the above Sudheesh and went away from the place after ensuring the death of Sudheesh. He would submit that though the learned Special Judge granted bail to accused Nos.10 and 6, who had no criminal antecedents, all other accused are in custody and the matter requires trial keeping their custody, who are all habitual offenders. He also submitted that the appellant and other accused, if released on bail, they would influence and threaten the witnesses from giving evidence against them with their high handed criminal activities and also would commit similar crimes.

In this case, as per the report filed by the Investigating Officer and as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant herein has involvement in 4 crimes as under;

(1) Crime No.2272/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 34 of IPC of Venjaramoodu Police Station;

(2) Crime No.1641/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324 and 307 IPC of Venjaramoodu Police Station;

(3) Crime No.48/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 395 IPC of Venjaramoodu Police Station; and

(4) Crime No.2028/2021 for offences punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC of Venjaramoodu Police Station.

Hence, the apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the appellant is released on bail, he would threaten and influence the witnesses from giving evidence in this case and he would involve in other crimes, is having force.

In such a case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not liable to be released on bail and the trial shall be completed keeping him in custody.

For the above said reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The learned Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.