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. 7374 of 2009 CRIME NO.762 OF 2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.12 -------------------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN @ THOMAS, S/O. KUNJUSANKARAN, AGED 31, THUNDUKATTIL HOUSE, VANDITHADAM, PUTHUSSERYMUKKU, THOTTAKKATTU DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ 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. 7374 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Accused No.12 in Crime No. 762 of 2009, Varkala Police Station seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143,147, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 341, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. On 23-9-2009, between 5 A.M. and 5.15 A.M., one Sivaprasad, aged 62 years was murdered near Ayiroor Post Office, Varkala. He had sustained fatal inuries on his neck, caused by lethal weapons. Sivaprasad had gone for a morning walk. 3. On the same day, one Ashokan alias Shanon was attacked with sword by three persons who came on motorbike. He sustained injuries on his head, abdomen and left shoulder. 4. The distance between the place where Sivaprasad was B.A. NO. 7374 OF 2009 :: 2 :: murdered and the place where Ashokan was assaulted is hardly 3 Kilometres. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid offences were committed by the members of a dalit organisation working under the name and style, Dalit Human Rights Movement (DHRM). Investigation also revealed that the two incidents took place as a result of common conspiracy. 6. It is alleged that the first accused Das is the South Zone Organiser of DHRM. The second accused, Advocate Asokan, is the legal advisor and leader of DHRM. The other accused persons are workers of DHRM. DHRM planned several criminal activities at various places in order to create terror and insecurity among the people and thus to gain prominence. 7. The petitioner (Accused No.12 – Chandrasekharan @ Thomas) was arrested 14-10-2009. He was remanded to judicial custody. 8. The learned Director General of Prosecution also B.A. NO. 7374 OF 2009 :: 3 :: submitted that the workers of DHRM are involved in the attempt to murder of one Sabu, while he was engaged in the preparation for the celebration of Sreenarayana Guru Samadhi. It is pointed out that Varkala Police registered nine crimes against the workers of DHRM during the last ten months. The activities of DHRM cause serious threat to the peaceful life of the people in the locality. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is most likely that the petitioner may indulge in criminal activities. The chances of the witnesses being intimidated and threatened, also cannot be ruled out. 9. The offence involved in the case is a heinous one. Sivaprasad was not involved in any political activities. He had no enemies. There was no reason to murder Sivaprasad. He became the victim only because he happened to be at the place where the culprits could conveniently execute their plan. Serious allegations are made against the accused persons and the workers of DHRM. It is alleged that they are inclined to cause terror in the minds of the people. The allegation is that the idea of DHRM is only to gain importance by indulging in criminal activities affecting the peaceful life of the people. B.A. NO. 7374 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is involved in the offence and whether his release on bail would be detrimental to the interests of the investigation as well as the safety and security of the general public. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner can be B.A. NO. 7374 OF 2009 :: 5 :: granted bail at this stage. The investigation is not complete. If the petitioner is 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 petitioner. The chances of tampering with the evidence and the petitioner fleeing from justice also cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/