Preeja v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.8976 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.2414/2020 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PREEJA, AGED 38 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SYAMALA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADHAPURAM, KUTHIRAKKULAM, MANICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695602** **BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.C.K.SURESH – SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **2** ## **ORDER** **Dated this the 08th day of January, 2021** ## **APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL** This is the 2[nd] successive application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is presently the accused No.9 in Crime No.2414 of 2020 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 294(b), 109, 201 and 212 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is this: 2. Due to political enmity existing between the two political fractions, regarding the defacto complainant and deceased on the one side and the accused persons on the other, on 30.08.2020, accused No.s 1 to 7, allegedly hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of two persons named Mithilaj and Haq Muhammad and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they lay in wait at Thembamood Junction, in Pullampara Village at about 11.00 PM, on two motor cycles, which were owned by accused No.s 2 and 8 respectively and after waiting there for the **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **3** defacto complainant and the deceased persons, they also came there on motor cycles and a scuffle ensued and resulted in the second accused chopping Haq Muhammad on his head, while the 1[st] accused stabbed Mithilaj with a knife, causing fatal injuries to both of them and they succumbed. When Haq Muhammad attempted to escape and flee from there, accused Nos. 1 to 3 chased him and slashed him with dangerous weapons like sword and knife, to make it sure that he did not escape. 3. Considering the gravity of the offence, a detailed investigation was conducted and it was revealed that the applicant, who is a 9[th] accused, was the cousin of the 2[nd] accused and had active political involvement and she had arranged for financing the accused persons to facilitate their escape and to harbour them in Ranni. There are statements of witnesses recorded to the effect that the applicant was very actively involved in the prosecution of the crime. Her complicity has been well established and therefore the earlier bail application was dismissed. Now, the change of circumstance is that the final report has been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 01.09.2020 and also that she is a lady, without any previous antecedents. **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **4** 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for bail for the reason that there is more than sufficient evidence, indicating the active involvement of the applicant in the conspiracy and also the harbouring of the accused. There are statements of witnesses which would go to show that the applicant had consequent to the commission of the offence, harboured and financed the main perpetrators of the crime. Moreover, the 2[nd] accused is a cousin of the applicant and also a close relative. She was also actively involved in political activities which took a decision to eliminate two persons belonging to the opposite political party. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that a tense situation still prevails in the area and there is every possibility for retaliation by the persons belonging to the adverse group and there is threat even to the life of the applicant, in case she is released on bail. And, hence, it is submitted that since the final report has already been filed, the trial can be expedited and she may not be released on bail. 5. In answer to that, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant points out to the statement given by one of the **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **5** witnesses, Ullas, who is the neighbour of the applicant, indicating that the applicant has only minimal role and that she had only provided assistance to the accused in a similar manner as was provided by the said witness and nothing more than that. All other evidence collected by the prosecution are only materials which would not stand scrutiny during the trial. And, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be granted bail. 6. After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the proviso under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C is applicable to the applicant since she is a lady, who is 38 years old with no previous criminal antecedents. She was not involved in any crime. Although, her political allegiance and complicity is also _prima facie_ established by the prosecution. But, that alone is not sufficient to deny bail to the applicant because to deny bail, there must be specific indications as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, which I would like to detail hereinunder: I) Whether there is any _prima facie_ or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence. II) Nature and gravity of the acquisition. **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** III) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. IV) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. V) Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; VI) Likelihood of the offence being repeated. VII) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. VIII) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (See _**State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another (2001) 4 SCC 280, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598**_ ). 7. Applying these principles to the present case, I find that the applicant is a lady with no other criminal antecedents. There is no likelihood of her absconding, since she is a politically connected person having a permanent place of residence. She is not likely to commit similar offences because earlier also she has not been involved in any other crime. There is also no **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **7** apprehension of her either threatening or influencing witnesses and there is also no danger of justice being thwarted, in case, the applicant is granted bail. Taking all these points into consideration, I am of the opinion that the detention of the applicant for a longer period than this is not contemplated. 8. In the result, the application for bail is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions: (i) She shall not enter the Sessions Division, Thiruvananthapuram, except for the purpose of attending trial. (ii) She shall surrender her passport and if she does not have one, file an affidavit to that effect before the jurisdictional court. (iii) She shall intimate her place of residence and mobile number to the Investigating officer and shall not move out of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court. (iv) She shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. (v) She shall not get involved in similar offences during **B.A.No.8976 OF 2020** **8** the currency of the bail period. In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. The bail application is allowed. **Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE** NR/08/01/2021