IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9980 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.8628/2011 MP.3308/2011 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO.1652/2011 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED : ------------------------ S.R.SATHEESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.N.SANKARAN, SREE SADAN, MUDIVILAKOM, VAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IN THE EARLIER BAILAPPLICATION THE ADDRESS HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN AS SATHEESAN S.R,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, SREE SADAN,MOOLIVILAKAM,VAYATHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.K.G.RAJEESH RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST-683542 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.9980 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1652 of 2011 of Perumbavoor Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11/10/2011. 4. The prosecution case is the following: On 10-10-2011, the accused persons and the deceased (Raghu) were travelling in a K.S.R.T.C. bus from Thrissur to Perumbavoor. The first accused was sitting by the side of Raghu. While the first accused slept, his mobile phone fell down. The mobile phone was taken by the deceased and it was placed on the seat. Later, the deceased removed the battery from the mobile phone. Another person standing by the side of the first accused reported the matter to the conductor. The conductor woke up the first accused and Bail Appln.No.9980/2011 : 2 : asked whether he had lost his mobile phone. At that time, the deceased took the mobile phone from the seat and handed over the same to the first accused. The first accused was asked whether the battery was inside the mobile. It was found that the battery was lost. When the conductor asked the deceased to hand over the battery, he did so. The first accused was asked to verify whether he had lost any money. After verification, he stated that he had lost money. By that time, the other passengers in the bus also were watching the incidents. The deceased handed over his purse to the conductor. The first accused took that purse and after taking some amount, it was returned. The first accused beat the deceased on his face two or three times. The first accused made a hue and cry. The first accused was asked by others as to how much money he was having. He stated that he was having `17,000/- with him and it was given by one Vinod of Thrissur after selling gold. While the bus was about to reach Angamaly, the second accused questioned the deceased and hit him on the back side of his head. The driver of the bus stated that if necessary, the bus could be taken to the police station. Though some of the passengers asked the deceased to get down, he refused. Bail Appln.No.9980/2011 : 3 : 5. When the bus reached Perumbavoor, the deceased and the accused got down from the bus. In the bus stand, the accused persons, three in number, attacked and manhandled the deceased. Some of the employees of the K.S.R.T.C. questioned this and stated that it was not proper to manhandle the deceased. The third accused (who is not identified) left the place. Accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to cruelly manhandle the deceased. The deceased fell down. At that time, the first accused threw some currency notes on him stating that while taking back the lost money, some amount belonging to the deceased came to his hands. Police was informed. While accused Nos.1 and 2 tried to leave the place, the people who gathered there did not allow them to go. The police took the victim to the hospital. The doctor stated that he was dead. 6. The postmortem certificate reveals the following antemortem injuries: “1. Abrasion 1 x 0.2 cm. on the right side of forehead 5 cm outer to mid line and 4 cm above the eyebrow. 2. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.3 cm on the left side of forehead 6 cm outer to midline and 2 cm above the eyebrow. 3. Contusion of scalp 8 x 5 x 0.5 cm on the left side of back of head, overlying the parietal eminence. Bail Appln.No.9980/2011 : 4 : 4. Contusion of scalp 5 x 4x 0.3 on the left side of the head 5 cm outer to midline and 7 cm above the eyebrow. 5. Contusion of scalp and neck 10 x 7 x 2 cm on the left side of the back of head overlying the mastoid, extended to the adjacent part of back of neck. Brain showed bilateral subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages. Sulci were narrowed and gyri flattened. 6. Contusion 4 x 3 x 0.5 cm on the right side of back of neck 4 cm below the mastoid process. 7. Contusion 8 x 7 x 1 cm on the right side of back of trunk 9 cm below the top of shoulder and 1 cm outer to midline. 8. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.1 cm on the knuckle of right ring finger. Scalp contusions and contusions on the back of neck and trunk could be seen after dissection.” The opinion as to cause of death is mentioned in the Postmortem Certificate as “Death was due to blunt injuries sustained to head.” 7. Adv. Sri. K. Ramkumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the investigation has progressed much after the dismissal of the Bail Application No.8628 of 2011. He also submitted that the statements of several witnesses were recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Bail Appln.No.9980/2011 : 5 : Procedure. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for continuing the judicial custody of the petitioner. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.3 is not arrested so far and that the investigation is not over. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for `50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Perumbavoor, subject to the following conditions:- A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Sundays and Thursdays for a period of two months and thereafter on Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; Bail Appln.No.9980/2011 : 6 : B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj