IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5453 of 2008(F) ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.107/2008 OF PETTAH POLCIE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------- ASOK KUMAR,S/O.SREEDHARAN, KIZHAKKEVEEDU HOUSE, NEAR NELIKUZHY CHURCH, KANJIRAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008 ALONG WITH BA NO. 5639 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.5453 & 5639 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for bail. 2. The petitioner in B.A.No.5453 of 2008 is the 1st accused and B.A.No.5639 of 2008 is the 4th accused in the same crime. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B), 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 4 conspired to kill defacto complainant and accused Nos.2 and 3 poured sulphuric acid on his face and he sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st accused submitted that 1st accused is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has been falsely implicated. The defacto complainant only suspected that the 1st accused is having animosity towards him and he was implicated on mistaken impression, it is submitted. He is in custody from 12.08.2008 onwards. 4. Learned counsel for the 4th accused submitted that the 4th accused is innocent of the allegations made. He is the air port B.A.5453 & 5639 of 2008 2 manager and he surrendered before the police on 12.08.2008 and he was arrested and he is in judicial custody since then. It is pointed out by him that in the First Information Statement itself the petitioner was introduced into the incident by an interpolation which is evident from the last portion of the F.I. Statement. It is pointed out that every omission, correction, deletion or interpolation, was initialed in the F.I. Statement except in the portion by which the petitioner was included. It is also submitted that except the allegation that the petitioner is involved in conspiracy, no materials are available to implicate him with conspiracy. The petitioner has not conspired with any of the accused, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1st accused was a casual labourer in the air port and the defacto complainant is the security officer in the air port. There were complaints against the casual labourer that he was entering into the air port premises without pass and also going to the air craft without permission. The brother of the 1st accused was also a casual labourer and he was also acting in B.A.5453 & 5639 of 2008 3 the manner as the 1st accused. The defacto complainant was making complaints against the 1st accused and his brother and they were motivated against the defacto complainant. The 4th accused, air port manager, was taking side of the 1st accused and they conspired together and in pursuance of the conspiracy the defacto complainant was attacked by pouring sulphuric acid to his face while he was getting into the vehicle. He sustained injuries and he was hospitalized. The incident happened near the house of the defacto complainant, when he was proceeding from the air port to his house in a vehicle driven by him. At that time, the 1st accused was proceeding in a bike following the defacto complainant. 6. A crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the defacto complainant. At that time, he had not seen the persons who actually poured the acid or the person who was following him in a motor bike. On investigation, it was found that the 1st accused was the person who is followed him in the motor bike and the accused Nos. 1 and 4 had conspired to commit the offence out of animosity towards the defacto complainant. B.A.5453 & 5639 of 2008 4 7. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that, to begin with, there was absolutely nothing to implicate any of the accused. Except a suspicion of defacto complainant, he had not seen the assailant. But the details of the phone calls made by all the accused and the tower from which the calls were made also were ascertained. Thereafter on questioning various witnesses from various places, it was found out that all the accused were involved in the offence. Accused nos. 2 and 3 poured the acid and the 1st accused is the king pin behind the act. Several phone calls were made between accused Nos. 1 to 3 immediately prior to the incident and thereafter and sufficient materials procured to connect the 1st accused with the crime. 8. However, learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, between accused Nos.1 and 4, there was only one phone call during this relevant period (learned counsel for the 4th accused submitted that as a superior officer, the 4th accused may make phone call into the 1st accused and it cannot be said on that basis alone that it was made for hatching a conspiracy). It is also submitted that, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this B.A.5453 & 5639 of 2008 5 case, much more materials are to be collected and in case the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it will adversely affect the investigation. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that of the specific role of the 1st accused in the crime and it is likely that his release on bail at stage may adversely affect investigation. But, as far as the 4th accused is concerned, the connecting link is the implication in the F.I. Statement, by way of an interpolation and also a solitary phone call made by him to the 1st accused during the relevant period. In the above circumstances, I find bail can be granted to the 4th accused but I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1st accused, at this stage of investigation. Hence the following order is passed: 1. The 4th accused shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned, on the following conditions: (i) He shall report before the Investigating B.A.5453 & 5639 of 2008 6 Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) He shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. (iii) He shall not leave the limits of the police station within which the crime is registered except with the prior permission of the learned Magistrate. 2. The prayer for bail by 1st accused is rejected. B.A.No.5639 of 2008 is allowed and B.A.No.5453 of 2008 is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac