IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7447 of 2009 CRIME NO.759 OF 2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8 1. MADHU @ SAJI, S/O.PACHAN, AGED 37, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, NEAR AMBEDKAR COLONY, VADASSERIKONAM, KARATTALALA DESOM, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. RAJEEV, S/O.THAMPI, AGED 25, THARATTEYIL VILAYIL VEEDU, VADASSERIKKONAM DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 3. RAJESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 31, PALAVILA VEEDU, PALAVILA, VADASSERIKKONAM DESOM, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. SUNIL, S/O.ASOKAN, AGED 27, THODUVE CANAL PURAMBOKKU VEEDU, VARKALA DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE. 5. BABU @ CHEMBU, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 30, KAVUVILA VEEDU, THOKKATTU, PANAYARA DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 6. JOY, S/O.MANIYAN, AGED 27, KALLIDANTHI UNNI BHVAN, PANAYARA PICHAKASSERI, PANAYARA DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 7. UNNI @ KOCHUMON, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 27, THOKKAD LAKSHAM VEEDU 27, PANAYARA DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 8. ANILKUMAR @ KUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, AGED 30, THOKKAD ERATH VEEDU, NEAR TEMPLE, PANAYARA DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7447 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.759 of 2009 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 109, 323, 324, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The date of occurrence was on 21.9.2009 at about 1.30 AM. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, who are workers of an organization called Dalith Human Rights Movement (DHRM), attacked two persons who were working in connection with some ceremonies in the Gurumandiram at Varkala. One of the victims sustained very serious injuries. The accused persons caused destruction to the property of Gurumandiram. The allegation B.A. NO. 7447 OF 2009 :: 2 :: is that the workers of DHRM, in order to gain momentum in their activities, decided to commit crimes and thereby to get public attention. It is stated that in furtherance of such conspiracy, several crimes were committed including the murder of one Sivaprasad by the activists of DHRM. It is stated that the offence committed in the present case is one among the illegal activities in which the activists of DHRM indulged in. 4. The first accused was arrested on 1.10.2009, accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 6.10.2009 and accused Nos.4 to 8 were arrested on 8.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the court for the grant of bail. It is submitted by the counsel that there is no justification for detaining the petitioners further. The counsel added that several political parties are working against the activities of DHRM, since they fear that their political support among public will vanish in due course. It is also submitted that in the area where DHRM activists are in majority, a drug mafia was functioning and that in that area alone drugs worth Rs.One lakh was being sold per day. Due to the activities of DHRM, drug trafficking had almost come to an end in that area. According to B.A. NO. 7447 OF 2009 :: 3 :: the counsel, these activities infuriated the drug mafia, who were in hands in glove with some of the political parties, and the drug mafia was indulging in activities to destroy DHRM and its activities. The aforesaid cases were registered not because the petitioners were guilty, but because there were certain others who were working against the activities of DHRM. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials already collected by the investigating agency would clearly indicate the guilt of the petitioners and that there are enough materials to show that the accused persons have committed the crime in the present case. 6. While disposing of an application for bail, it is not necessary and it is not expedient also, to consider the merits of the case in detail and to arrive at a conclusion, one way or other. Such a practice is deprecated in various decisions of the Supreme Court. It would not be to the interests of the prosecution as well as the defence, if the Court comes to such a definite conclusion at the time of disposing of the application for bail. B.A. NO. 7447 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the offence. Prima facie, there are materials to show that the petitioners were involved in the offence. The quilt or otherwise of the petitioners is a matter to be proved at the time of trial. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that DHRM activists were justified in their activities and they want to reform the society by their activities. Any activity to reform the society by lawful means could not be blamed. At the same time, under the pretext of propagating any ideology, no person is entitled to infringe the constitutional rights and civil rights of any other citizen. The freedom of all citizens is precious. Whether he believes in any ideology or not, the freedom which he has cannot be curtailed by anybody else. Whether DHRM activists were justified in indulging in the activities which are attributed to them is not a matter to be considered by the Court. The question is whether the offence alleged was committed and whether the accused persons are involved in the offence. At the time of disposal of the bail application, the question to be considered is whether, prima facie, there are materials to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are involved in the offence and whether their B.A. NO. 7447 OF 2009 :: 5 :: release on bail would be detrimental to the interests of the investigation as well as the safety and security of the general public. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that the petitioners can be granted bail at this stage. The investigation is not complete. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the witnesses would be influenced or intimidated by the petitioners. The chances of tampering with the evidence and the petitioners fleeing from justice also cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/