IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5880 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.RC 034 2010 S 0008 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4: ------------------------------------------- BRIJITH T.J., S/O JANARDHANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, THAZHATH HOUSE, VEROLI, PUTHUSSERY P.O., KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S) & STATE: --------------- STATE, REP. STANDING COUNSEL, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.RC 0342010 S 0008 TVPM) SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SC FOR C.B.I. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON 22.08.2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.NO.5880 OF 2011 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioner is one among the accused (A4) in a crime now investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, for short, the 'C.B.I.' He is a police officer, formerly attached to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakkad. The aforesaid crime was registered over the death of one Sampath allegedly in custody after he was apprehended by the police in connection with the murder of a woman. The petitioner and several other police officers had tortured Sampath in custody and thereby caused his custodial death, is the gist of the prosecution case. The investigation of the crime implicating them for various offences including the offence of murder under Section 302 of B.A.NO.5880/2011 2 the Indian Penal Code was initially conducted by the local police and now taken over and continued by the C.B.I. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urging that there is no shred of material against the petitioner to connect him with the offences imputed in the crime contended that solely on the basis of statements recorded from a few police personnel, who had been initially proceeded as those among the culprits in the crime, treating them as approvers, he is falsely implicated in the crime. The investigation was previously conducted by the local police and the Crime Branch and at that stage, there was not even any allegation against the petitioner or his complicity in any manner in the death of Sampath, is the further submission of the counsel. Though the present investigating agency C.B.I. had collected non-bailable warrants from the court as against some superior police officials, for their arrest, as culprits involved in causing the murder of Sampath, such warrants were returned, and no action is taken against any of them, is also urged by the counsel that the investigation of the crime is not fair and it is proceeded implicating persons like the petitioner as culprits B.A.NO.5880/2011 3 screening of and protecting the culprits involved. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Court to have his enlargement on bail and he will fully co-operate with the investigation of the crime, is the further submission of the counsel. 3. Opposing the application, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. contended that the petitioner, a police officer, against whom, clinching materials have been collected showing his complicity in the brutal custodial death of the victim Sampath, even after publication of a 'lookout notice' against him remain at large evading arrest. The learned counsel further submitted that he was an active participant in inflicting inhuman assault over the victim, who suffered extensive injuries and bled to death while he was a custodial prisoner. Not only that there was blatant violation in recording the arrest of the victim, he had been kept under illegal confinement, brutally tortured for hours, and after his custodial death, every attempt was made to obliterate the evidence of the crime by its perpetrators, is the submission of the counsel. Complicity of the petitioner as one B.A.NO.5880/2011 4 among the assailants in brutally torturing the victim and causing him grave injuries resulting in his death is revealed by the materials collected in the investigation, and as such, to have a fair and smooth investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner to unravel the entire incident surrounding the crime is vital, is the submission of the counsel urging that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The investigating agency also apprehends of threat, inducement and influence of the material witnesses and also obliteration of evidence in the event of granting bail to the petitioner, a police officer, is the further submission of the counsel. 4. Petitioner is a police officer, and he cannot be a law breaker. He stands accused of a grave crime involving the offence of murder, that too, as one among those who involved in causing custodial death of a victim. He had no role in causing the death of the victim and has been falsely implicated, is the plea raised to seek pre-arrest bail from this Court. The fact that a 'lookout notice' has been published against him by the investigating agency as he is stated to be evading from the B.A.NO.5880/2011 5 investigating agency, remains undisputed. Some of the police constables have given statements as approvers implicating the petitioner also as one among the assailants of the victim in torturing him while in custody, is also not a matter of dispute for the moment. Two other prisoners, who were taken with the victim, it is stated, have also given statements before the investigating agency over the torture inflicted on them and also on the victim while they were kept under custody. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, in such circumstances, and also his identification by material witnesses connected with the crime, no doubt, may be essential for a fair and proper investigation of the crime. The crime was earlier investigated by some other agencies and some higher police officials, who too, are stated to be involved in the brutal custodial death of the victim are not being proceeded with are not circumstances enuring in favour of the petitioner to seek his anticipatory bail from this Court. 5. From the submissions made and the facts and circumstances of the case presented, as there is room to suspect B.A.NO.5880/2011 6 the culpability of the petitioner as one among the participants in torturing and causing the custodial death of the victim, I find, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that the petitioner, a police officer, who has evaded from arrest even after the publication of the lookout notice against him, is likely to induce, influence and threaten the material witnesses connected with the crime, and, thereby, obstruct its investigation, cannot also be brushed aside. The bail application is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp B.A.NO.5880/2011 7