High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-08-02Bail granted to the applicant with specified co...

SajeeB @ Velli SajeeB v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:BA 6065/2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2024-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: Bail granted to the petitioner on conditions: (i) bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) appearance on all posting dates; (iii) no travel outside Thiruvananthapuram District except for court obligations; (iv) prohibition on interfering with investigation or influencing witnesses; (v) prohibition on involvement in any other crime while on bail. If violated, bail may be cancelled upon application to the jurisdictional court.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant with specified conditions, subject to compliance; potential cancellation on violation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SajeeB @ Velli SajeeB

Respondents

State of Kerala
Najla
Naseeha N

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. John Sebastian
• Ralph Vishnu Chandran
• Ralph Reti
• John Giridhar
• Krishna Kumar
• Geethu T.A.
• Apoorva Ramkumar
• Mary Greeshma

Counsels for Respondents

• P. K. Varghese
• Jerry Mathew
• Dhanesh V. Madhavan
• Rameez M. Azeez
• M. T. Sameer
• K. R. Arun Krishnan
• Reghu Sreedharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by SajeeB alias Velli SajeeB, the first accused in Crime No. 2414/2020 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, commonly known as the Venjaramoodu double murder case. The petitioner faces multiple serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), sections 109, 294B, 341, 302, 201, 118, 120, 212 read with Section 34, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Eight co-accused are also named in the crime. The petition argues innocence and asserts the accused acted in private defence when attacked; a counter-claim is being pursued in a separate matter. The defense contends prolonged incarceration (nearly four years) and difficulties in defense due to non-disclosure of documents, along with allegations that other co-accused have been released on bail or convicted. The prosecution counters that the petitioner masterminded the premeditated murder, with serious consequences for witnesses and public order, and notes prior antecedents. The court references a Supreme Court decision (Sheikh Javed Iqbal) emphasizing expeditious trials and the principle that prolonged detention can justify bail. Ultimately, the judge grants bail with conditions, balancing the right to a timely trial with public interest in justice, and warns that failure to comply may lead to cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPC, 1973IPC Sections 120B, 109, 294B, 341, 302, 201, 118, 120, 212 (r/w 34)Section 27 of the Arms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right to timely trial and the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right to speedy justice and may warrant bail even in serious cases when a timely trial is not feasible.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and asserts private defence in the face of an attack; he has co-operated with proceedings, faced lengthy detention since 30.08.2020, and highlights non-disclosure of documents to an under-trial prisoner. He points to delays in trial due to the large witness list (184+), paralleling a separate counter-case, and argues that other accused have received bail or are convicted. He requests bail with reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution argues the petitioner masterminded a premeditated conspiracy to commit a double murder, citing serious offences, prior antecedents, and potential threats to witnesses and public order. It asserts that granting bail would undermine investigations and the safety of individuals in the area; argues the trial will not be delayed by the accused’s release.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Utter Pradesh	2024 KHC Online 6380	Positive	Cited for the proposition that where trial is not expeditious, it is justifiable to consider bail to prevent prolonged incarceration, and that serious charges alone cannot bar bail if a timely trial is not in sight.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SajeeB @ Velli SajeeB v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 6065 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.2414/2020 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **SAJEEB @ VELLI SAJEEB, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ISMAYIL, RESIDING AT AANAKKUZHI ANANDAVILASOM, THEMBAMOODU DESOM, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 683102** **BY ADVS. V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH VISHNU CHANDRAN RALPH RETI JOHN GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR GEETHU T.A. APOORVA RAMKUMAR MARY GREESHMA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**| |***2**|**NAJLA**| ||**W/O HAQ MUHAMMAD BISMI MANSIL,**| ||**KALANGAN MUGAM, PULLAMPARA P.O VENJARAMOODU,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |***3**|**NASEEHA N**| ||**W/O MITHILAJ NAFI MANSIL,**| ||**KALLAMBALAM,**| ||**KARAVARAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| **(*ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AND R3 AS PER ORDER IN CRL.MA.NO.2/2024 DATED 31.7.2024 )** **BY ADVS. P.K.VARGHESE JERRY MATHEW DHANESH V.MADHAVAN RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ M.T.SAMEER K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN REGHU SREEDHARAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.07.2024, THE** **COURT ON 02.08.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- BA 6065/2024 ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **BA No.6065 of 2024** ## **---------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2. The Petitioner herein is arrayed as the first accused in S.C No.260/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No. 2414/2020 registered by Venjaramoodu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 109, 294(b), 341, 302, 201, 118, 120, 212 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Eight other persons are accused along with him in the crime. 3. The prosecution case is that, based on a pre-existing rivalry between two political parties, on 30.08.2020, at about 11:30 pm, the accused murdered the deceased and injured another person, who also -3- BA 6065/2024 succumbed to the injuries. The case is infamously known as the Venjaramoodu double murder. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. John.S. Ralph argues that the petitioner is innocent of the charges levelled against him. He argues that the petitioner had only exercised his right of private defence when he was attacked, for which a countercase has been registered, and committal proceedings are going on. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2020, and since then, he has been in custody. Even the documents that are to be given to him are not supplied, and as an under-trial prisoner, the petitioner is put to all kinds of difficulties in defending his case properly. It is also pointed out that some of the accused are already released on bail and that A2 and A3 have already been convicted for other crimes and are undergoing sentence. The petitioner also points out that even according to the report of the Court concerned, the trial will take a long time as 184 witnesses are cited in the case apart from the number of pending cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he had co-operated with the trial and was even ready to proceed with the trial during vacation. It is submitted that it is almost four years since the petitioner was detained. It is also submitted that the counter case, -4- BA 6065/2024 SC No.685/2023 was transferred to the Court concerned and the trial of the same is also to be held simultaneously. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of the trial getting over any time soon is impossible. Learned counsel therefore submits that he may be granted bail imposing suitable conditions. 5. The Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is the mastermind of having arranged all others, he led the conspiracy to commit a double murder in a pre-planned manner with a motive, and there is clear proof of the conspiracy hatched by the first accused. There is ample proof for the charges levelled against him, and he also has two other antecedents, one under Section 324 IPC and another under Section 307 IPC. Given the heinous nature of the offence, the petitioner may not be released on bail. The prosecution does not cause any delay in the trial. It is also pointed out that the presence of the accused itself can create havoc in the area; witnesses are also of the same area, and the trial will surely be obstructed if the petitioner is released on bail. He also pointed out there would be a threat to the life of the petitioner if he is released on bail as a double murder was committed by him out of political rivalry. It is further submitted that the petitioner is charged with very serious -5- BA 6065/2024 offences and that he had also committed a crime while he was in jail and an FIR has been registered against him. Going by the antecedents reported against the petitioner he should not be granted bail, despite the length of detention being four years. It is also submitted that the intelligence report suggested that there is a threat to his life and that the life of the defacto complainant in Crime No. 1628/2020 if he is released on bail. The Prosecutor also submitted that the delay in trial is due to the acts of the first accused. 6. The defacto complainant, who appeared for the wives of the deceased, submitted that the accused has criminal antecedents, he is politically influential, the witnesses are the common people of the area who will certainly be influenced or intimidated, the CCTV footage proves the charge alleged against the petitioner and at least till the main witnesses are examined, the petitioner should not be released on bail, as a fair trial is likely to be adversely affected. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on all sides. 8. A report was called for from the Court concerned as to the number of adjournments sought on behalf of the first accused. It was reported that the case was adjourned on three occasions at the -6- BA 6065/2024 request of the first accused namely on 18.3.2024, 19.3.2024 and 29.4.2024. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the 'B' Diary shows that there were no adjournments sought by him but the examination was deferred. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.8.2020, which means almost four years. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in **Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Utter Pradesh** (2024 KHC OnLine 6380) if the alleged office is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously and where a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose the bail of the accused under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious. The bail, cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. It is also held that once it is obvious that a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period, Courts would be obligated to enlarge them on bail. As stated above, taking note of the length of the detentions and also the principles of law stated by the Honourable Supreme Court and as prolonged incarceration militates against the -7- BA 6065/2024 precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: “(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all posting dates without fail, except specifically exempted by the trial court; (iii) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvananthapuram District except to comply with condition No.(ii) or to comply with any court conditions; (iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence any witness in the aforementioned crime; - (v) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail; -8- BA 6065/2024 If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.2414 of 2020 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may apply to the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.” Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** dlk/1.8.2024 -9- BA 6065/2024 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6065/2024** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** |**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| |---|---|---| |||**02.11.2023 IN B.A. 4960/2023**| |**ANNEXURE**|**2**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| |||**11.07.2024 IN CMP 3623/2024 IN SC**| |||**260/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE**| |||**ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3**|**ORDER DATED 25-09-2023 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.5396/2023 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**4**|**ORDER DATED 12-06-2023 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.746/2023 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**5**|**ORDER DATED 30-09-2022 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.6045/2022 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**6**|**ORDER DATED 06-06-2022 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.3863/2021 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**7**|**ORDER DATED 06-06-2022 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.3489/2021 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**8**|**ORDER DATED 22-04-2021 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.1317/2021 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**9**|**ORDER DATED 08-01-2021 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.8976/2020 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**10**|**ORDER DATED 04-12-2020 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.7950/2020 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**11**|**ORDER DATED 17-11-2020 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.7105/2020 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**12**|**ORDER DATED 17-11-2020 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.7106/2020 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**13**|**ORDER DATED 12-10-2020 IN BAIL**| |||**APPL.6457/2020 ON HIGH COURT**| -10- BA 6065/2024 |**ANNEXURE**|**14**|**ORDER DATED 02-11-2023 IN BAIL**| |---|---|---| |||**APPL.4960/2023 ON HIGH COURT**| |**ANNEXURE**|**15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE A DIARY PROCEEDINGS**| |||**OF S.C NO. 260/2021**|