Vishnu @ Inthakkan vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

The second and third accused in Crime No. 626/2023 of Nedupuzha police station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code have filed this application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail

The prosecution case is that on 30.08.2023 at about 3.45 p.m., the accused and the victim Karunamayam @ Vishnu entered into a quarrel in a place near the house of the wife of the first accused at Kanimangalam and in the midst of the same the first accused stabbed the victim on his chest and the victim thereafter succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The prosecution case would also show that the third accused Alkesh helped the first accused Nikhil to escape from the scene of the occurrence. As per the prosecution averments, the second accused Vishnu threw away the knife (used by the first accused for the commission of the above offence) into a pond adjoining the railway track passing near the above place of occurrence. The second accused Vishnu also destroyed his shirt having blood strains of the aforesaid victim when he tried to shift the victim to the Elite Mission Hospital for treatment in his car, and thereby committed the above offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case the death was due to the single stab of A1 and A2 was implicated as an accused only because he alleged to be present at the place of occurrence. The allegation against A2 is that he helped A1 in disposing of the knife used by A1 after the crime and the charge against A3 was helped A1 abscond. Learned counsel argues that there was no participation of the petitioners in the crime and the allegation against him is post-crime and therefore the charge under Section 302 will not lie against the petitioners herein. Initially, the petitioners were granted bail by Annexure 2 order dated 1.9.2023 considering the fact that the remand report did not specify that A2 and A3 had conspired with A1 for committing the murder or that A2 and A3 had acted in furtherance of their common intention. Under such circumstances, bail was granted. Later section 34 was also invoked as the allegation was that immediately after the offence, A3 rescued him from this spot and therefore the ingredients of 34 cannot be ruled out. Thus finding that though there is no overt act on the part of A2 and A3 in the act of stabbing the victim, considering the conduct of A2 in concealing the knife and causing the disappearance of the weapon used in the crime soon after the incident, leads to an inference that there was consensus among the accused. Accordingly, the bail granted was cancelled. The petitioners surrendered on 5.9.2023 and have been in custody since then

The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that though the petitioners did not have any role in the commission of the crime namely the stabbing of the deceased, they had helped the first accused in concealing the knife and attempted to destroy the evidence, it was in that background that Section 34 was also incorporated

Having considered the rival submission it cannot be disputed that there is no allegation of the petitioners having committed any act which led to the death. It was a single stab by A1, even going by the prosecution case the charge against A2 is a post-crime that he helped A1 in concealing the knife. Those charges against A2 would certainly lie but it is arguable whether a charge under Section 302 as such would lie against the petitioners, more so when the alleged acts are committed subsequent to the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. In the absence of any material to show the participation of the petitioners in the act causing death or to prove any case of abetment or conspiracy, under such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application on strict conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing separate bonds for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction; one of the sureties shall be a parent or close relative of the petitioner

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of three months and thereafter as directed by the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall they tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial;

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail;

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the Court having jurisdiction;

(vi)The petitioners shall surrender his passport, if any, within seven days from the date of his release before the Court concerned, and if the release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioners shall be at liberty to move appropriate applications for the same before the court having jurisdiction. If the petitioners have no passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect before the court concerned on the date of execution of the bond or within three days thereafter.

(vii)The petitioners shall furnish their present address and mobile numbers to the Court concerned and the investigating officer.

(viii)The petitioners shall not enter the territorial limits of Nedupuzha police station for two months.

(ix)The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall appear on all the postings except when absence is permitted by the court concerned.

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