Dravyan v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1832 of 2011() -----------------------Crime No. 481/CR/HHW-III/KKD/10 of CBCID, KOZHIKODE .................... APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------- DRAVYAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, KARIYAKUNNATH HOUSE, KOORKKAPARAMB, THIRUVEGAPPURA PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE CRIME BRANCH CID, CALICUT. Addl. Director General of Prosecution Sri. P.N.Sukumaran THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON 17-03-2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## V. RAMKUMAR, J. ........................................................ Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 ......................................................... ## Dated: 17-03-2011 ## ORDER In this petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the Ist accused in Crime No. 481/CR/HHWIII/KKD/2010 of the Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 328,120 B , 471 and 201 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sections 57 A and 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 7-09-2010 . 2. This case was originally registered as Crime No. 290 of 2010 of Kuttippuram Police Station. Since the final report (charge-sheet) has already been filed on 6-12-2010 before the J.F.C.M., Tirur, the petitioner is in custody beyond the statutory period stipulated under the proviso to Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:2:- Sec. 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Addl. Director General of Prosecution opposed the application. 4. I heard both sides and perused the records. 5. This is the Malappuram District Hooch Tragedy Case in which altogether 24 persons lost their lives, three persons lost their eye-sight and 86 persons were hospitalised due to various problems after consuming the killer brew from the toddy shops at Vaniyambalam within the limits of Wandoor Police Station and from the toddy shops at Kuttippuram , Perassannur and Beeranchira within the limits of the Kuttippuram and Tirur Police Stations . ## THE FACTUAL FLASH BACK 6. The Kuttippuram Police registered a case as Crime No. 290/2010 under the caption “unnatural death” with regard to the dead body of an unidentified male aged about 35 years found on the platform of the Kuttippuram Railway Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:3:- Station at 6.25 p.m. on 5-09-2010. Later on, the dead body was identified as that of one Dhanasekharan, a native of Tamil Nadu. After inquest over the dead body was held it was sent to the Medical College, Kozhikode for autopsy. The postmortem findings revealed that the deceased died due to consumption of noxious toddy. A further probe by the Kuttippuram Police brought to light that the deceased had consumed adulterated toddy from a toddy shop at Kuttippuram. Thereupon the caption “unnatural death” under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. was deleted from the FIR and the aforementioned offences were added. Consequent on the death of a few others within the limits of the Kuttippuram & Tirur Police Stations, the Kuttippuram Police registered Crime Nos. 291 to 295 and 297 of 2010 and the Tirur Police registered Crime Nos. 667 to 670 and 672 of 2010 for the aforementioned offences . Considering the seriousness of the case, the investigation of the cases was transferred to the Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:4:- Crime Branch Police which took over the investigation in all the above cases on 14-09-2010. During the course of investigation it was revealed that all the dead persons had consumed noxious toddy from the toddy shops situated at Kuttippuram, Beeranchira and Perassannur which were conducted by A1 (Dravyan) who was running the toddy shops at Kuttippuram and Perassannur where the licensees were A2 and A3. The licensees of the Beeranchira toddy shops are accused Nos. 4 to 7. Samples of the toddy kept for sale in the toddy shops were collected and sent for chemical analysis. The report of chemical analysis showed that the toddy contained Methyl Alcohol (Methanol) which is the poison used for denaturing rectified spirit. The noxious toddy was sold under the name “speed toddy” besides which pure tapped toddy was also sold. Hence, the persons responsible for the sale of “speed toddy” very well knew that it was toddy mixed with chemicals intended for Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:5:- enhancing the intoxicating strength of the liquor. What is revealed is a criminal conspiracy by A1 to A18 to make huge profits by selling spurious toddy instead of pure toddy and A1 along with A16 to A18 had mixed methanol with toddy in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched between A1 and A18. 14 persons died after consuming illicit toddy from the toddy shops at Kuttippuram , Perassannur and Beeranchira within the limits of the Kuttippuram and Tirur Police Stations. 10 persons died after consuming the noxious toddy from the toddy shop at Vaniyambalam within the limits of the Wandoor Police Station. “Alcohol” has ruined several families. It is the filthy lucre which had impelled the accused persons to sell noxious toddy unmindful of the catastrophe which was in store for the poor consumers most of whom were tamilians. 7. The petitioner was the person who was running the toddy shops at Kuttippuram, Beeranchira and Perassannur. Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:6:- 14 persons died after consuming noxious toddy from these toddy shops. His contentions that when things went wrong , A2 to A7 who are the real licensees in respect of the said toddy shops are putting the blame on the petitioner cannot be accepted. He was actually securing the licenses benami in the names of A2 to A7 since he was convicted under the Abkari Act, and was disqualified from applying for license. 8. The mere fact that the accused persons have undergone considerable period of incarceration without a trial by itself is not a ground to release them on bail in a case where the charge-sheet has already been laid. Likewise, the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or concluded in the near future is also not relevant for enlarging the accused on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and the alleged clout and influence of the accused are sufficient to infer that they may not hesitate to influence or intimidate the witnesses and attempt to tamper Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:7:- with the evidence . (Vide Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan -(2004) 7SCC 528) . While liberty of the accused is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts, such protection cannot be absolute in all situations. There has to be a balance struck between the valuable right of liberty of the accused and the interest of the society in general. The individual interest of the accused will have to yield to the collective interest of the community at large which outweighs the personal liberty of the accused. (Masroor v. State of U.P. - (2009) 14 SCC 286 and Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtaqu Hasan Khan & Another - (1987) 2 SCC 684). It is well settled that the grant of bail to a co-accused (A6 & A13 in this case) is not a ground available to another accused to claim his release on bail as of right . After evaluating the pros and cons, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail . This petition is accordingly dismissed. Bail Application No. 1832 of 2011 -:8:- ## Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2011. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/