V. M. Radhakrishnan v. State (CBI) - Bail Application No. 2874 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/6TH VAISAKHA 1935** ## **Bail Appl..No. 2874 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------(CRIME NO.RC 02(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/TVPM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED A4:** **-------------------------------------------** **V.M.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN NAIR, NO.18/714, NINEETITA, BIG BAZAR P.O., NEAR DPO ROAD, PALAKKAD.** **BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.S.RAJEEV** ## **RESPONDENT/ STATE:** **------------------------------------** **STATE, REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI, SPE/CBI, SCB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (CRIME NO.RC 02(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/TVPM) - 695 001.** **BY SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SC,C.B.I.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-04-2013, THE COURT ON 26-04-2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **P. D. RAJAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=** ## **B.A. No. 2874 of 2013** ## **=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 26[th] day of April, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.35/2011 of Kasba Police Station, Palakkad. Subsequently, another Crime No.40/2011 of the same Police Station was registered and both of these cases are now under investigation under CBI as Crime No.RC 02(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/TVPM. Crime No.35/2011 was registered under section 302 IPC and section 174 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.40/2011 was registered under sections 306 and 506(1) r/w section 34 IPC. 2. The allegation in Crime No.35/2011 was the deceased V. Saseendran murdered his two sons Vivek and Vyas by hanging them between 16.30 hours and 20.40 hours on 24-1-2011 and thereafter he committed suicide by hanging in his house at Jawahar Nagar, Kurudikkad, Palakkad. The allegation in Crime No.40/2011 was that deceased Saseendran while working as Company Secretary, Malabar Cements Ltd., Walayar, the then Managing BA 2874/2013 2 Director of the Company M. Sundaramoorthy, P.Suryanarayanan, Personal Secretary of the Malabar Cements Ltd. and V.M. Radhakrishnan @ Chakku Radhakrishnan, a private contract of the Malabar Cements Ltd. had harassed deceased Saseendran on different occasions and as a result of which, he resigned from his job and he was threatened that he and his family will have to finally commit suicide and he will not be allowed to work in any firm and on the basis of this threat, Saseendran killed his two sons and committed suicide. During investigation of the aforesaid crimes by local police, as per the direction of this Court in order dated 25-2-2011 in Crl.M.C. No.464/2011, the investigation was entrusted to the CBI. The Kerala Unit CBI registered Crime No.RC 02(S))/ 2011/CBI/SCB/TVPM and proceeded with the investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 19-3-2013 and produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. He was remanded to judicial custody on 20-3-2013. His bail application was dismissed by BA 2874/2013 3 the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. Hence, this application. 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that deceased Saseendran has got a lot of family problem, which is known to everybody and this led to his suicide. The petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident. The Investigating Agency raided the business premises of the petitioner and no incriminating articles could be collected from there. For the past several months the petitioner has been complying with the directions of the Investigating Agency and he is fully cooperating with them. The arrest of the petitioner is only to satisfy the politicians and medias. CBI had produced certain documents to create an impression that the petitioner has got good clout in the administration of the Malabar Cement Ltd. Documents received during the investigation have no relevance with this case. The investigating agency failed to prove any single circumstance to connect the petitioner with this crime. The alleged raid and arrest of the petitioner BA 2874/2013 4 will not in any way help the CBI to connect him with the crime. The petitioner is ready to obey any condition imposed by this court. Hence, he prays for bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI strongly opposed the application and contended that the petitioner had business transaction with Malabar Cements Ltd. where deceased Saseendran was the Company Secretary. Four vigilance cases are pending against the petitioner who is a business man. He caused huge loss to the Malabar Cements Ltd. and got more gain to him with his business transaction. Deceased Saseendran was threatened and intimidated by the petitioner on several occasions during the investigation of the above cases by the Vigilance Department and he requested the deceased to give favourable evidence in all these vigilance cases. The deceased was not willing to act in his favour. At that moment itself enmity started and finally the petitioner cooked up the aforesaid planned murder. The investigation is in progress. Several incriminating articles were BA 2874/2013 5 recovered during the investigation. The petitioner is very influential and if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, he will influence the prosecution witnesses and it will affect the progress of the investigation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the application. 5. From the history of the investigation it is clear that deceased Saseendran was the Company Secretary and he was found dead in his house under suspicious circumstances. Two crimes were registered and investigation was proceeded by the Kasba Police, Palakkad. During investigation, the investigating agency failed to file a final report with regard to the aforesaid incident. In such a situation the wife of the deceased approached this Court and on the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the investigation was entrusted with the CBI. During investigation several persons were interrogated by the CBI. According to them, 244 witnesses were examined on different occasions. Investigation reveals that the petitioner is involved in four corruption cases of Malabar Cements BA 2874/2013 6 Ltd. They collected documentary evidence in connection with the aforesaid cases. The wife of the deceased disclosed that there was a threat from the petitioner when deceased Saseendran was the Company Secretary of the Malabar Cements Ltd. Moreover, accused 2 and 3 were also harassed and intimidated Saseendran. 6. The records seized by the CBI show that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The wife of the deceased and family members disclosed before CBI that deceased Saseendran was facing continuous threat, pressure and intimidation from the petitioner and other accused persons. As a part of the investigation, the CBI searched the house of the petitioner on 10-10-2012 and seized handwritten note of the petitioner which shows acquaintance of the petitioner with the deceased. Telephone calls of the deceased are also verified and the investigation is in progress following scientific methods. The office premises of the petitioner was searched and certain documents were seized. The petitioner was taken into BA 2874/2013 7 custody after detailed report. The totality of the investigation report shows that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The gravity of the allegation and the nature of the offence are also considered by me. 7. This is the case based upon circumstantial evidence. Each and every circumstance were meticulously examined by the investigating agency. They are collecting evidence one by one connecting the chain of events, leading to the proof of the prosecution case. Two crimes were registered by the police based on technical description. The progress of the investigation and circumstances leading to a planned murder, the names of each prosecution witness connected with each facts were collected by the investigating agency. There was huge pressure from the public to book the real culprits. When the case is based on circumstantial nature and no direct eye witnesses are available, the pressure on investigating agency is very high. Besides this, when there is no direct evidence, more clear function of the CBI is expected to locate the real person BA 2874/2013 8 who has committed the crime by proper investigation, collect evidence available against him, to arrest such persons and bring him to the court, according to law. 8. There is well demarcated sphere of activity defined in the field of detection of crime by the police. When a crime is reported, it is the exclusive responsibility of the police department to keep vigilance over the investigation and bring the offender in the right way. As a part of questioning witnesses, huge number of persons were interrogated. The field work were carried out by the specially trained police officials at the scene of crime and place of work. They detected certain material articles, which were under examination in the police laboratory, analysis the clues and waiting for reach in the final opinion. According to 2(h) Cr.P.C. investigation means and includes of the proceeding under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any other person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. Chapter XII of the Code prescribed the procedure BA 2874/2013 9 for investigation. Investigation starts after the police officer received information in regard to the offence. Under the Code investigation consists of (i) proceeding to the spot, (ii) ascertaining of facts and circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery and arrest of the offender, (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statement into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of place of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial and (v) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accuse before the Magistrate for trial and if so, taking necessary steps for the same by the filing of charge sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. Here the investigation is progressing. 9. Issue of grant of bail in non-bailable offences, particularly before commencement of trial, was considered by the Apex Court in the State (through Deputy Commnr. of BA 2874/2013 10 Police, Special Branch, Delhi) V. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1504, and held as follows:- “9. .. I am of the view that the Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations.” In the aforesaid decision the Apex Court referred in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 2 SCR 358 : (AIR 1978 SC 179) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 2 SCR 371 : (AIR 1978 SC 429) 10. I have considered the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed. I have also considered the position and status of BA 2874/2013 11 the petitioner with regard to the victim and witnesses. According to the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is highly influential business man. Moreover, the public interest attached to the alleged offence is also very important. There is every likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. 11. Considering the public interest and interest of the State, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage. This application is dismissed accordingly. ## **P. D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** nkm.