Bail Applications No. 10499/2022 & No. 2408/2023 (Crime No. 1989/2021, Palakkad Town South Police Station)

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 10499 OF 2022` ``` CRIME NO.1989/2021 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` 1MUHAMMED HAROON, AGED 32 YEARS S/O KAMALUDHEEN, PALLIMEDU, ATHIKKODE, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678555 2NASEER, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SHAIK MUSTHAFA, PULIYANTHONI, KAMBRATHCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678507 BY ADVS. SUNNY MATHEW NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678013 BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2408/2023, THE COURT ON 21.08.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2408 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1989/2021 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` NOOR MUHAMMED AGED 31 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NAVAKKODE, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501 BY ADVS. SUNNY MATHEW NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101 BY ADVS. BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2023 ALONG WITH Bail Appl..10499/2022, THE COURT ON 21.08.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 3 ## `ORDER` ## `[Bail Appl. Nos.10499/2022, 2408/2023]` ... These bail applications are submitted by the accused in Crime No.1989/2021 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The crime was registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 201, 212, 109, 118,465 and 471 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. Bail Application No.10499/2022 was filed by the accused Nos.6 and 7, whereas B.A.No.2408/2023 was filed by the 11[th] accused. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 15.11.2021 at about 8.45 a.m., while the deceased Sanjith, a worker of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh **(RSS)** , travelling along with his wife on a motorcycle, accused Nos.1 to 5 came in a Maruti-800 car and rammed the motorbike. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 attacked the said Sanjith with swords and sticks and thereby inflicted serious injuries, ultimately leading to his death. Initially, the crime was registered against five persons and during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that it was a pre-planned political murder executed by the members of an organisation, viz. Popular Front of India **(PFI),** which was later banned by the Government of India. Accordingly, in the further investigation conducted, the petitioners herein were implicated as accused Nos.6,7 and 11 on the allegation that murder was committed based on a conspiracy hatched between the ## B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 4 accused Nos.1 to 14 and the same was executed with the help of the other accused. As part of the investigation, the 6[th] accused was arrested on 23.1.2022, the 7[th] accused was arrested on 23.12.2021, and the 11[th] accused was arrested on 21.01.2023. Since then, they have been under judicial detention, and these applications for regular bail are submitted in such circumstances. 3. Heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel and the Additional Director General of Prosecutions for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are absolutely no materials indicating the role of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that they were implicated only based on confession statements which are not admissible in evidence as the same was recorded by the police and thereby hit under section 25 of the Evidence Act. The other evidence available is not sufficient to make out the offences against these petitioners. They have been under judicial detention for the past several months, and the final report in this case is also submitted. There is no necessity for further incarceration of any of the petitioners. 5. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (ADGP) stoutly opposes the aforesaid prayer and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is pointed out that ## B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 5 this is a case in which the murder of the deceased was committed in a well-planned manner. The said murder is forming part of a series of political murders and attacks between ‘RSS’ and a rival organization named Popular Front of India. The repeated incidents of assaults and murders between these organizations are affecting the law and order situation in the area. The release of these petitioners was objected to also on the ground that all of them are active workers of the Popular Front of India, and the release of the same could trigger further attacks of similar nature in the locality. It is also pointed out that there are ample materials indicating the role of each and every petitioner, and the learned ADGP made available the Case Diary after highlighting the role of each and every petitioner. 6. I have gone through the records. In order to consider the applications for bail, the role of every petitioner has to be separately examined. Firstly, it is to be noted that, as against the 6[th] accused, the specific case of the prosecution is that he is the PFI/SDPI member of Athikode in Kozhinjampara, and he was very active in the organisational activities of the same. The 6[th] accused has given a confession statement indicating his role in the commission of the offence. Of course, the said statement cannot be admitted in evidence in view of the prohibition contemplated under section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, on perusal of the Case Diary, it can be seen B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 6 that there are ample materials indicating the role of the petitioners, which are in tune with the admissions made by the 6[th] accused in his confession statement. The prosecution has a specific case that, before committing the murder of the said Sanjith on 15.11.2021, the accused persons had seven conspiracies in different locations on different dates. The relevant dates of conspiracies for the commission of the murder are 14.8.2021, 30.8.2021, 10.9.2021, 24.10.2021, 3.11.2021, 13.11.2021 and 14.11.2021. Out of the said conspiracies, the 6[th] accused participated in five conspiracies along with some other accused persons. There are ample materials to establish the said aspect in the form of call data records and the tower location of the mobile phone of the 6[th] accused. Besides the same, the conspiracy allegedly committed on 14.11.2021 took place in a shed situated in the property in possession of the 6[th] accused. The aforesaid aspect is evident from the statement of CW7, who had seen the petitioner herein along with the 1[st] accused who physically participated in the murder of the said Sanjith and identified him properly. The call data records also support the said aspect. The statement of CW189 also indicates that, immediately after the incident, the 6[th] accused absconded. CW163 is the owner of the property where the conspiracy on 14.11.2021 occurred, and he deposed that the 6[th] accused had taken possession of the said property based on a lease deed executed ## B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 7 between him and the 6[th] accused. The aforesaid shed was also shown by the 6th accused based on the confession statement. Thus, it is evident that the role of the 6[th] accused is very much evident. 7. When coming to the role of the 7[th] accused, it can be seen that he was more active in the murder of the deceased. In the case of the 7[th] accused also, there is a confession statement and several other materials corroborating the admissions made by the said accused in his confession statement. The specific case of the prosecution is that based on a conspiracy hatched between the accused persons, the 7[th] accused was entrusted with the task of procuring the vehicle to enable the accused members 1 to 5 to reach the place of occurrence and to flee from there. He was also entrusted with the duty of making necessary arrangements for the weapon as well. In the implementation of the same, the 7[th] accused, with the help of CW45, a broker of used vehicles, purchased a Maruti-800 car. CW39 is a dealer of used cars. Both the said witnesses have clearly stated that the 7[th] accused obtained a vehicle from CW30 and the said statement is corroborated by CW38, who accompanied the 7[th] accused in taking delivery of the said vehicle from CW39. In addition to the above, the statement of CW131 would reveal that, on 03.09.2021, CW38 brought the said vehicle to his shop to fix dark sun control film on the window glasses of the said vehicle, and accordingly, it was fixed as well. ## B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 8 8. Apart from the same, after the murder, CW7 took the said vehicle to CW35, who is conducting an establishment named “Sree Murugan Traders”, where CW35 was carrying the trade of dismantling the vehicle and selling the same. His statement would indicate that, on 17.11.2021, the 7[th] accused brought a white Maruti-800 car for dismantling and after negotiation, CW35 purchased the same for Rs.15,000/-. An advance amount of Rs.1,000/- was collected by the 7[th] accused, and the remaining amount was transferred through Google Pay to the account of one Nabas, as instructed by the 7[th] accused. Another crucial aspect to be noticed in the statement of CW35 is that when the car was entrusted to him, the 7[th] accused required the removal of the number plates of the said vehicle, which was KL-07-8139. Accordingly, the number plates were removed, and the car was entrusted to the 7[th] accused. It is also stated that, in the number plates, figures 7,1 and 3 were found scratched. Later, based on the confession statement given by the 7[th] accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the above number plates were recovered from a workshop. The said aspect is evident from the statements of CW100 and CW101. In the statement of CW35, who dismantled the said vehicle, it was mentioned that sun control film was seen affixed on the window glasses when the vehicle was brought to his shop. From all the said materials, it is evident that the 7[th] accused also had an active role B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 9 in the murder of the deceased. The presence of the 7[th] accused is felt right from the conspiracy hatched on 14.08.2021, and it continued even after the murder of the deceased. 9. The remaining person is the 11[th] accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.2408 of 2023. The 11[th] accused was the Division Secretary of the Popular Front of India, Puthunagaram. The prosecution case relating to his role is that of conspiracy. According to the prosecution, he was one of the key conspirators who participated in the planning and execution of the murder, right from its inception. As mentioned above, out of 7 conspiracies, he participated in three conspiracies physically. Apart from the above, the prosecution relies on the call data records and tower locations of the accused to establish his link with the murder of the deceased. It is also to be noted that the said accused is also given a confession statement before the police. Of course, as mentioned above, the confession statement cannot be accepted as admissible evidence as it is given before the police. However, there are several other materials substantiating his role, which are in tune with the admissions in the confession statement. The learned ADGP made available the details of the call data records and tower locations and the details of the analysis made by the police in respect of the same. The same would reveal that the 11[th] accused was regularly in touch with the other accused persons, including the 1[st] , 6[th] , B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 10 7[th] and 8[th] accused, who were actively involved in the said offences. Besides his physical presence, on all the dates of conspiracies, he had contacts through the phone with the other accused persons. Moreover, the specific case of the prosecution is that the murder of the said Sanjith was planned by the members of the organisation of Popular Front of India, which was later banned by the Central Government, after a series of conspiracies, and the 11[th] accused was the Division Secretary of the Popular Front of India, Puthunagaram. The records would also reveal that several violent incidents have occurred, resulting in mutual attack between the members of the said organisation with its rival organisation, viz. RSS before and after the murder of the said Sanjith. Initially, the deceased Sanjith was assaulted on 27.6.2020, in which some of the workers of PFI and the said Sanjith sustained some injuries. Later, as a retaliation of the same, on 26.7.2021, one Sakkir was allegedly assaulted by the RSS workers. The present incident has occurred as a retaliation for the attack on Sakkir as the accused persons were under the impression that it was the said Sanjith, who was holding an official position as Thenali Mandal Baudhik Pramuk of RSS, was instrumental in such an attack. A conspiracy was thus hatched between the accused, and the first conspiracy took place on 14.08.2021 at Puthunagaram Udaya College ground, where a function organised by the SDPI, a political B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 11 party having allegiance to the Popular Front of India, was going on. The presence of the 11[th] accused during the said conspiracy is evident from the records. As mentioned above, on all the dates of the conspiracies referred to above, the 11[th] accused was in regular contact with the other accused persons, including the persons who physically committed the crime. In his contact list, the other accused, who physically participated in the murder, are also there. In my view, the official position that the 11[th] accused held with the organisation allegedly behind the murder, his presence in the places where the conspiracy took place and his regular contacts with the other accused are certain factors which cannot be ignored when considering the question whether a prima facie case is established or not, as against him. 10. The leanred counsel for the petitioners contended that, as far as the 6[th] and 7[th] accused are concerned, there is no direct evidence showing their role, and they were implicated with the aid of section 120B of IPC. In this regard, the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Kehar Singh and Others v. State ( Delhi Adminstration) MANU/SC/0241/1988** are relevant and the same read as follows; **“** ………………………………Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of ## B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 12 various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial……….” Thus the conspiracy can be proved through circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence. In this case, there is ample evidence to show that the accused persons joined together on various dates at various places. All of them are connected through an organisation allegedly behind the murder, and all of them were in regular contact. The various stages of preparation and the acts taken pursuant thereof for committing the murder and the execution of the ultimate act, coincide with the dates of conspiracies as well. The official positions held by the accused persons in the organisation are yet another aspect. Those are all some of the crucial aspects which are necessarily to be taken note of while considering the role of the accused nos 6 and 11. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned ADGP, the incident which is the subject matter of these bail applications is one among the several cases which formed a series, during the past several years, which took place in various parts of the State. Since the aforesaid acts were committed with meticulous planning, allegedly with the support of the said organisation, which had its presence throughout the State B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 13 until it was banned recently, the aforesaid acts have to be addressed very cautiously. Since it is an organised crime, stringent measures have to be taken to curtail the continuation of such types of activities. The acts committed by the accused persons have serious ramifications upon the people of the State, as it creates fissures in the cordial relationship between two different religions and therefore, under no circumstances can such acts be viewed lightly. Some of the crucial conditions to be considered for deciding the question whether bail is to be granted to the accused, are the seriousness of the acts and also the impact of the said act upon society as a whole. When considering the materials placed on record, I am of the view that in the light of the respective roles of the petitioners, their release on bail at this juncture is not at all warranted. The contention put forward by the learned ADGP that the release of the petitioners on bail is likely to result in further incidents of this nature is also a matter to be taken into consideration. Thus, when all the above aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to any of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. Sd/- **JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** pkk B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 14 ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2408/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 882/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, PALAKKAD ``` B.A.No.10499/22 & 2408/2023 15 ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10499/2022` |`PETITIONER’S`|`ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure A1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022`| ||`IN CRL.M.P. NO.446/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT`| ||`OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-`| ||`III, PALAKKAD`| |`Annexure A2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2022`| ||`IN CRL.M.C. NO. 2587/2021 PASSED BY THE`| ||`COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`| ||`MAGISTRATE- III, PALAKKAD`| |`Annexure A3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE MRI SCAN REPORT ISSUED`| ||`TO SHRI. KAMALUDHEEN IS THE FATHER OF THE`| ||`1ST PETITIONER, FROM THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL`| ||`COLLAGE, KOZHIKODE`| |`Annexure A4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND`| ||`FOLLOW-UP PRESCRIBED TO THE 1ST`| ||`PETITIONER'S FATHER, SHRI. KAMALUDHEEN`|