IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3812 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.1376/2010 of DIST & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... (CRIME NO.1010/2009 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ------------------------------------------- R.BAIJU, S/O. RAMANAN, KKKPARAMBATHU VELI, CMC-31, CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.C.S.SUNIL FOR ADDL.R THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3812 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324 and 427 IPC. According to prosecution, on 29/11/2009, at about 7:30 p.m, while de facto complainant and her family members were present in their house, accused numbers 1 to 6 came to the house, and accused numbers 1 to 5 went inside the house and assaulted de facto complainant's husband and his father. De facto complainant was also assaulted. Accused number 6 was waiting outside the house. Offences were committed, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused, under the leadership of 6th accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 6th accused in the crime is falsely implicated in this case at a highly belated stage. Though the incident happened on 29/11/2009, until the death of deceased K.S.Divakaran on 08/12/2009, petitioner's name was not mentioned anywhere. Though there were eye witnesses to the occurrence who include the de facto complainant, in the FIS, no mention was made about petitioner's involvement. Petitioner is a local leader of CPI(M) and deceased Divakaran is a local leader of the congress party. It is only at the instance of the opposition leaders that B.A No.3812 OF 2010 2 the petitioner is falsely brought into the array of accused, it is submitted. 4. It is also submitted that the son of the deceased is an injured in the incident and he is an alleged witness to the occurrence. He had not implicated petitioner in the crime, even in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Though the names of accused numbers 1 to 4 are mentioned in FIS with reference to their names, there is absolutely no whisper in the statement to show that petitioner had any role in the incident. The deceased's son also did not mention in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C that petitioner did anything at the scene, it is submitted. De facto complainant who is the daughter in law of the deceased gave a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C stating that petitioner was also present at the scene though she did not say so, in FIS. It is only due to political intervention that petitioner is brought to the array of accused by subsequent statements. 5. This petition is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the widow of the deceased as well as his son. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant and other eye witnesses (CW1 to CW3) were questioned by police, after registration of crime, and without delay and petitioner's involvement is clearly revealed from their statements. It is also submitted that petitioner had taken part in a criminal conspiracy hatched at the house of 5th accused. The statement of two witnesses B.A No.3812 OF 2010 3 are available in the case diary to show that petitioner was present at the house of 5th accused, at the time when the conspiracy was hatched. It is also pointed out that there was some quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner in respect of supply of coir mat and this was taken up before the grama sabha by the deceased. Thereafter, a criminal conspiracy was hatched on the same day to commit murder of the deceased. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that petitioner was present in the premises when the incident happened and one witness has given statement that petitioner was seen close to the house of the deceased, when the incident happened. Petitioner is also required for custodial interrogation and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. Learned counsel for the widow of the deceased submitted that first accused is a notorious criminal in the locality and he is involved in various crimes. Petitioner is also involved in various other crimes and anticipatory bail may not be granted to a person with criminal antecedents, it is also submitted. The allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned counsel for the son of the deceased submitted that petitioner filed two applications for bail before the Sessions Court and both the petitions were dismissed. The incident happened as early as on 29/11/2009 and the petitioner was not B.A No.3812 OF 2010 4 available for arrest. Petitioner is an influential person and if he is granted anticipatory bail, it is likely that he will interfere with the investigation. 8. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case diary, I am satisfied that there are materials in the case diary to prima facie connect petitioner with the crime. Petitioner's custodial interrogation may be necessary to reveal various aspects in respect of offence under Section 120(B) IPC. Even the phone details are seen collected by the Investigating Officer and petitioner will have to be interrogated for revealing his complicity in the crime. Apart from all these, petitioner is having a criminal background as seen from the remand report. Copy of an FIR relating to another crime registered against petitioner as accused is also produced in this bail application by the respondents. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not think it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender to law and co-operate with investigation without any delay. 9. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter, since any further delay caused for surrender is likely to affect the investigation adversely. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv