IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3722 of 2009 CRIME NO.918 OF 2008 OF THALASSERRY POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- AJEESH K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.918 OF 2008 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION). DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON 05/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3722 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.12 in Crime No.918 of 2008 of Thalassery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) and 120B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 31.12.2008 at about 5.30 PM, one Lathesh was murdered by a group of people. Lathesh was the local branch secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). It is alleged that Lathesh was murdered by the workers of the Bharathiya Janatha Party on account of political rivalry. Lathesh was attacked with deadly weapons like sword sticks and axe. The scene of occurrence was at a place about 2 ½ B.A. NO. 3722 OF 2009 :: 2 :: kilometres away from Thalassery Police Station. The incident took place near the seawall and seashore. Several people were present near the scene of occurrence. The accused persons hurled country bombs to terrorize the people. Lathesh sustained several cut injuries, which resulted in his death. The First Information Statement was laid by the brother of the deceased. It is stated that Lathesh was murdered on account of political rivalry. In the First Information Statement, it is stated that on the previous day, Councillor Ajesh (petitioner) and several BJP activists had gone to the house of the deceased and cautioned that the days of the deceased were counted. 4. The prosecution case is that the incident occurred as a result of the conspiracy hatched by the accused and that the petitioner is also involved in the conspiracy. There is no case that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Rajeev submitted that on 31.12.2008 at 2.45 PM one Rajeesh, an activist of BJP, was attempted to be murdered. Rajeesh sustained serious injuries. While Rajeesh was being taken from Indira Gandhi Hospital, Thalassery to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode in an ambulance, the vehicle was B.A. NO. 3722 OF 2009 :: 3 :: intercepted by a group of CIP(M) workers and they attacked the persons inside the ambulance. The petitioner was also in the ambulance. It is stated that the CIP(M) workers obstructed the ambulance and attacked the persons in order to murder the petitioner and Rajeesh. On the information given by the petitioner, Crime No.6 of 2009 of Thalassery Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out that though there was an attempt to murder the petitioner and Rajeesh, the injured, the police had not included the appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.6 of 2009. Sri.Rajeev submitted that there is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner was anywhere near the scene of occurrence. It is clear that the petitioner had gone to Kozhikode accompanying Rajeesh, who was seriously injured as a result of the attack made by CIP(M) workers. It is also pointed out that though the ambulance was obstructed by the CIP(M) activists, the police did not take any timely action. 5. Sri.Rajeev submitted that the petitioner is included as accused No.12 in Crime No.918 of 2008 only on account of political pressure. The petitioner is the Municipal Councillor of Thalassery B.A. NO. 3722 OF 2009 :: 4 :: Municipality and he is an active worker of BJP. It is submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. 6. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the petitioner is involved in the conspiracy and that Lathesh was murdered as a result of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including the petitioner. The learned Director General of Prosecution also pointed out that even in the First Information Statement, there is reference to the threat made by the petitioner to do away with Lathesh. 7. The investigation is in progress. Grave allegations are made against the accused persons. One person died in the incident. Several other persons were injured as a result of the alleged attack made by the accused persons with deadly weapons. It is also alleged that the accused persons hurled country bombs to terrorize the people who were available in the place. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Director General of Prosecution, it is clear that several political clashes took place in the locality between the workers of CIP(M) and BJP. I am not inclined to accept, prima facie, that the petitioner is B.A. NO. 3722 OF 2009 :: 5 :: falsely implicated in the case. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. The investigation has to go on and only after the investigation, all the relevant facts and materials would be brought out. In a case of this nature, I do not think it is proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/