Sujithran v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 4341 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 9569/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** SUJITHRAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. SUNDARAN, NADUVIL VEEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678732 BY ADVS. NIKITA J. MENDEZ P.M.RAFIQ(K/45/2001) M.REVIKRISHNAN(K/1268/2004) AJEESH K.SASI(K/166/2006) SRUTHY N. BHAT(K/000579/2017) RAHUL SUNIL(K/000608/2017) SRUTHY K.K(K/117/2015) P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)(K/421/1984) ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678622 BY ADVS. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.PP - C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** **----------------B.A. No. 4341 of 2023** **----------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of September, 2023** ## **ORDER** This is an application for regular bail. 2. The petitioner is the 9[th] accused in Crime No.203/2022 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner/9[th] accused are under Sections 120(B), 109, 118 and 34 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution allegation in brief, is that due to the previous enmity towards the deceased person, on 15.04.2022 at 13.20 hours, the accused Nos.1 to 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, in furtherance of their common object, armed with deadly weapons, hit the car into the bike on which the deceased and father were returning from the mosque and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 2 slashed the deceased with weapons that they were carrying and the deceased thereafter died due to the injuries. Thus the accused persons are alleged to have committed the abovesaid offences. ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 3** 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2022 and he is in judicial custody since then. The investigation of the case is over and the final report has been submitted and further custody of the petitioner is not required. Though the petitioner moved an application for bail before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad and the same was dismissed as per Annexure-A1. An application for bail submitted before the Court of Session, Palakkad was also dismissed as per Annexure-B order. Though the petitioner moved an application for bail as B.A.No.5023 of 2022, the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court again filing B.A.No.7421 of 2022, the same was rejected by this Court by Annexure-C order. Again petitioner moved this Court filing B.A.No.8214 of 2022 which is dismissed as withdrawn as per Annexure-E order. Thereafter, petitioner again moved this Court filing B.A.No.9569 of 2022, which was also dismissed as withdrawn as per Annexure-F order. Petitioner submits that there is ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 4** no serious allegation against the 9[th] accused and he has been dragged into the case only because of his political affinity to a particular political party. Petitioner relying on Annexure-D statement of CW80 submits that other than the 161 statement of CW80 there is no material to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. The learned Senior Counsel to drive home the point that the evidence of CW80 alone is not sufficient to prove the case against the petitioner to relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra (1982 SC 839), Stalin vs. State (Manu/SC/0087/2023),Rony Thomas vs. State of Kerala (Manu/KE/1244/2023), Muhammed Yousaf vs. State of Kerala (Manu/KE/0477/2022)**_ . 5. The learned Addl. Director General of Prosecution opposed the application for bail and he submits that the present crime is a retaliation to the murder of one Sanjith on 15.11.2021 and in the present crime one Muhammed Subair who is a leader of the rival political party was murdered, and in the alleged incident, the father of the deceased ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 5** also sustained injuries including fracture of his leg. Going by the prosecution allegation, the 1st accused hit the car driven by him on the motorcycle of the deceased, and accused Nos.1 to 3 hacked him to death. As per the postmortem report, there are 74 ante-mortem injuries. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution further submitted that on the very next day of the murder of the deceased another worker of the rival political party, one Sreenivasan was hacked to death and Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town Police Station was registered. The Additional Director General of Prosecution would further submit that even though the serious overt act of attacking the deceased with dangerous weapons is on accused Nos.1 to 3, the investigation reveals that the petitioner has a very active role in the conspiracy which was hatched out to murder the deceased who was a leader of the rival political party. The statement of CW80 reveals the active role of the petitioner and the other accused in the conspiracy to commit the murder. Learned Additional Director General of ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 6** Prosecution further submits that conspiracy was hatched out on various occasions, i.e., on 19.11.2021, 08.01.2022, 30.01.2022, 06.03.2022 and 08.04.2022. The CDR details reveal that the petitioner was present along with the other accused in the conspiracy hatched out on 19.11.2021, 08.01.2022, 30.01.2022 and 06.03.2022. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submits that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner for having been involved in the conspiracy to commit the murder. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (the petitioner herein) are involved in various other crimes. To the said submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been acquitted in both the cases registered earlier. The Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution further submits that there exists serious communal tension as an aftermath of the said crime and the police had to labour much so as to bring the situation under control, at least to a certain extent. ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 7** Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner who is having an active role in the commission of the offence and who has criminal antecedents if released on bail, there is every chance for the commission of similar offences and also to intimidate and threaten the witnesses and also to flee from justice. The Addl. Director General of Prosecution relies on the judgment in _**Anil Kumar**_ _**Yadav v. State (NCT) of Delhi and Another (2017 KHC**_ _**5659), Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (2007 KHC 3002),Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. And Another (2015 KHC 4650)**_ and _**Pradeep @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala and Another (2021 (4) KHC 358)**_ in support of his contentions **.** 6. The prosecution case is that the 9[th] accused is have an active role in the commission of the offence in as much as he was part of the conspiracy which was hatched out on various occasions to murder the deceased. The CDR details also revealed that the petitioner was present among along with the other accused during the said conspiracy. The evidence of CW80 also reveals the active role of ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 8** the petitioner and the other accused in the conspiracy to commit the murder. Going by the prosecution case, the petitioner is involved in other crimes also. 7. The judgments relied on by the Senior Counsel are all on appeal filed against the conviction and sentence and essentially basing upon the admissibility of evidence of CW80. I am of the opinion that this Court shall not enter upon any conclusion regarding the admissibility of the evidence of CW80 while considering this bail application, which is a matter for the trial court to consider during the trial. In _**Rajesh Ranjan**_ _**Yadav's**_ case cited supra, the Apex Court has held that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a long period of incarceration by itself would not entitle him to be enlarged on bail. In _**Neeru Uadav's**_ case supra, the Apex court had highlighted the parameters to be looked into while dealing with an application for grant of bail and held that it is the duty of the court to take into consideration factors like nature of the accusation and the ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 9** severity of punishment in cases of conviction, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, apprehension of threat to the witnesses, etc. In _**Anil Kumar Yadav's**_ case supra, the Apex Court has held that for ensuring a fair trial witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear and that though the personal liberty of the accused is relevant consideration equally important is to consider the impact of the release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. 8. Learned Director General of Prosecution would submit that the petitioner has filed successive bail application which were either dismissed on merit or dismissed as withdrawn and relying on the judgment in _**Pradeep @ Kuttan's**_ case cited supra, held that when the court has considered in detail in the earlier order regarding the contention of the petitioner the same cannot be considered again in a subsequent bail application. It is seen that the present murder is one among the series of murders that has happened in the locality due to ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 10** political vengeance. Going by the postmortem report, it is seen that the deceased has been murdered in a very brutal manner and has been inflicted with 72 anti-mortem injuries. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance for repetition of similar offences and also to threaten the witnesses, which will again lead to serious communal unrest in the area. The gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence was committed, its impact on society, and the possibility of accused persons tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses are all relevant matters for consideration while considering the bail application. The grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of evidence to prove his involvement in the conspiracy has been dealt with elaborately in the earlier bail application in Annexure-C order and without any change in circumstance, I find no reason to take a different view that was taken in the earlier bail ## **B.A. No. 4341 of 2023 11** order. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage. Therefore, the bail application is accordingly dismissed. When the matter was taken up for consideration on earlier occasion, I have called for a report from the trial court concerned regarding the present stage of the case and is reported that the case is now posted for hearing on framing of charge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking into consideration the long detention of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the trial of the case, i.e, SC No.903 of 2022 and to complete the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible and to complete the same preferably within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of framing of charge. sd/- ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm