IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6188 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.762/2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------ JAYAN @ JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN @ COMPUTER RESIDING AT KOLAPOIKA PUTTANVEED, PRUMPUZHA DESOM, ELAMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT RNAKULAM,THROUGH TH CIRCLE INSPCTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, DGP SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURSH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6188 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 ORDER Accused No. 3 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 murdered and the place where Ashokan was assaulted is hardly 3 BA No.6188/2009 2 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. 3- Jayan alias Jayachandran) was arrested 29-9-2009. He was remanded to judicial custody. 8. Sri. V.G. Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that 14 accused persons are involved in the offence. Of them, accused Nos. 1 to 5, 8 to 10 and 12 were arrested. The BA No.6188/2009 3 other accused persons are yet to be arrested. 9. Sri. Johnson Gomez, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only material brought out by the prosecution is that the petitioner had lent his Hero Honda motor bike to his friends, who are accused Nos. 5,6 and 7. According to the counsel, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the crime. 10. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the investigation revealed that the petitioner took part in the conspiracy which took place at the residence of accused No. 4 , namely, Madhu alias Saji. The petitioner has provided the motor bike owned by him for commission of the offence. Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (Sudhi, Mukesh and Thoduve Sudhi) travelled on the motor bike and attacked Sivaprasad. It is stated that after the incident, accused No. 9 contacted the petitioner over mobile phone and gave information about the commission of the offence. 11. The learned Director General of Prosecution also 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 BA No.6188/2009 4 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. 12. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioner that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are enough materials to implicate the petitioner as an accused. 13. 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. BA No.6188/2009 5 14. It is true that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29-9- 2009. That by itself is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. The investigation is not over. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would cause adverse impact on the proper investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioner would indulge in criminal activities, intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. Before parting with the case, I find it appropriate to point out the following. Sivaprasad lost his life and Asokan alias Shanon sustained severe injuries, not because they indulged in any criminal activities. They were not targeted as such by the accused. The allegation is that some “human beings” were targeted by them and Sivaprasad and Asokan happened to be those persons. Whatever may be the ideology of an organisation, the members of the organisation have no right to cause loss of life and limb of the citizens. The State is bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens. Any right thinking person would say that the family of the deceased and the victim should be adequately compensated, though any amount of compensation would not be a substitute for the life of a human being. If the State compensates, it BA No.6188/2009 6 means the people collectively take the burden of sharing the compensation. I do not think the people would be unhappy if adequate compensation is provided to the family of Sivaprasad and to Asokan alias Shanon. If so, the State also would not find it inappropriate to do so. I hope the needful would be done by the Government of Kerala. Registry will communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE