IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4597 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.3176/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... (CRIME NO.111/2008 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS A1 TO A10 -------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, ANEESH HOUSE, PALKULANGARA, VANCHIYOOR. 2. MANOJ, S/O.THAMPI, CHERUVOKOTTUKONAM, PUTHEN VEEDU, MALAPPARIKONAM, ULIYAZHAGTHARA. 3. RENJITH, S/O.RAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN, KERALADITHYAPURAM, ULIYAZHAGTHARA. 4. BIJUKUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, PALATHARA, KERALADITYAPURAM, ULIYAZHAGTHARA. 5. RENIJTHKUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, REVATHY BHAVAN, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD. 6. BALU MAHENDRAN, S/O.MICHALE, SUNIL NIVAS, KERALADITHYAPURAM, ULIYAZHAGATHARA. 7. SATHEESH, S/O.SATHYARAJ, MUMTHAZ MAHAL HOUSE, MANNARAKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU. 8. BABIN @ VIPIN, S/O.BABY, T.C.76/2122, OOLANKUZHY KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KADAKAMPALLY. 9. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SADANANDAN, TC 76/654, PATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA, KADAKAMPALLY. 10. BOSE, S/O.NIZAR, PANAKUZHY VEEDU, PETTAH, VANCHIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KREALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.4597 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. ORDER Application for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(b) and 302 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the accused in this case assaulted deceased Vishnu and committed murder of the deceased in the broad daylight on a public road in the Capital city. The incident occurred on 1-4-2008. The victim is a C.P.I.(M) worker and the accused are workers of R.S.S. and B.J.P. The motive for the crime is political rivalry, and petitioners are accused 1 to 10 in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the First Information Statement which was given by an eye witness, only five persons were involved in the assault. It is stated therein that six persons came in three bikes, armed with deadly weapons and they attacked the victim with swords, pipe, chopper [B.A.No.4597/08] 2 etc. and on the way to the Medical College Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. There is absolutely no whisper regarding any more number of persons having committed the offence. Had there been six motor bikes and twelve persons at the scene, as now alleged, it is highly unlikely that an eye witness would omit to make mention such facts in the first information statement itself. He will not limit the number of accused and the bikes to just half of the present number. Therefore, it is vehemently argued that the number of persons and bikes were deliberately increased to bring in more persons from the rival group. 4. The present allegation is that there were 16 persons. The number of the accused are now multiplied and various innocent persons are deliberately brought into the array of accused, under political influence. A colourful story is developed now and this is done only to harass innocent persons from the political rival group by implicating them in the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that even while the witnesses were questioned at the time of inquest, the allegation made was that there were 5 to 6 persons for the commission of offence. Thus, at the initial stage of investigation, nobody had a [B.A.No.4597/08] 3 case that twelve persons were involved. If it were a political murder, it is highly unlikely that at least by the time of inquest, correct information would not have been gathered. 5. It was also pointed out that the deceased has several enemies on the political front as well as from other source. The deceased was an accused in several cases both political and otherwise and several persons had enmity towards him. It was not clear at the initial stage whether the incident happened due to political reasons or other reasons. Even at the time of inquest, it was not clear whether the attack was from the political enemies or the other rivals, as seen from the conclusions made in the Inquest report. 6. It was argued by learned counsel for petitioner that as per the report in Deshabhimani (Annexure-III) itself, it is alleged therein that professional goondas were behind the incident. It was also reported therein that the assailants had come wearing helmets and masks. Other paper reports were also produced and marked in this case. In Annexure-VI report, the murder was reported as 'gangland attack' and according to police, it can be due to a “inter or intra gang rivalry”. On the basis of those reports, it was argued that rival goondas were involved in the [B.A.No.4597/08] 4 offence but workers of RSS and BJP were falsely implicated giving it a colour of political rivalry, it is argued. 7. Though the incident happened on 1.4.2008, for a very long time, nobody could find out who were all actually involved in the offence. It is only from 9th April, 2008 onwards that the police started putting blame on workers of R.S.S/B.J.P. As per another paper report which is marked, there was an allegation that a prominent Minister's son was involved in the crime and it was argued that because of this, an attempt is made now to divert the investigation by allowing the actual culprits to escape. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after the incident on 25.4.2008 there was a mediation talk by a “Peace Committee” and absolute peace is prevailing in the locality now. It was also pointed out that this fact was also taken note of by learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application. The bail order is produced. It was observed therein as follows: “It is seen from the report that the condition of the locality is come to normal but with some tension alone. So considering the circumstances of the case, I feel that bail can be granted to the petitioners in both the applications with some stringent conditions.” 9. The accused were arrested on different dates. Accused 1 [B.A.No.4597/08] 5 and 4 were arrested on 10-4-2008, accused 2 and 3 were arrested on 11-4-2008, accused 5 was arrested on 19-4-2008, accused 6 and 10 were arrested on 25-4-2008 and accused 7, 8 and 9 were arrested on 20-5-2008. The accused are in custody for a very long period and they may be granted bail, it is submitted. At any rate, the present allegations are contrary to the original case, as seen from the FIR, Inquest report etc., and hence, petitioners may not be detained in custody any more on the basis of the present version of the prosecution which is an improved and modified one and for all these reasons, it is submitted that the petitioner may be released on bail. 10. The application is strongly opposed. It is submitted by learned Director General of Prosecution that this case is an offshoot of a political rivalry. A person who is an active worker of C.P.I.(M) was murdered brutally on the public road in the Capital City in front of the Passport Office, in the broad daylight. The incident happened at 10.15 a.m. in a very busy place in the capital city. Twelve persons came in six motor bikes and assaulted a young man by using sword, stick and other weapons and this has shocked the conscience of the public. He submitted that this is the first political murder of its kind in the Capital City [B.A.No.4597/08] 6 and it is a planned political murder. 11. Because of this incident, another crime also occurred in which a B.J.P. worker was assaulted and attempted to be murdered in the premises of an orphanage by the workers of the C.P.I.(M). The said incident happened on 19-4-2008. A crime was registered involving offence under section 307 IPC also. Because of all these, there is a tense situation in the locality and if the petitioners are granted bail, it will certainly disturb peace in the locality, it is submitted. There is every chance or possibility of retaliation, if the petitioners are released on bail. It is essential that commission of further crimes are prevented, especially in the Capital City and for this purpose, bail has to be refused, it is strongly submitted. 12. It was also pointed out that in the test identification parade, A1 to A10 were identified. If the petitioners are released on bail, no witness will dare to come and state the facts before the court. The case is now pending before the Addl. Sessions Court-III as S.C.No.1485/2008 and it can be disposed of without any delay. In such circumstances, bail may not be granted to the petitioner, it is submitted. The allegations that Minister's son is involved etc. are only on the basis of hearsay and no reliance [B.A.No.4597/08] 7 may be placed on the paper report at this stage. It is also submitted that petitioners are having criminal back-ground. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners explained that the crime which was registered in connection with the retaliation of is crime no.127/2008 of the same police station. It was a case in which a B.J.P. worker was attacked by the workers of C.P.I.(M) and he was almost murdered and a crime was also registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 452, and 307 read with section 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The incident occurred on 19-4-2008 but the main offenders accused 1, 3 and 4 were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, as per order dated 24-6-2008. 14. On hearing both sides, I find that since charge is already submitted, the petitioners may not be required for the purpose of investigation. But, further detention of the petitioners is is insisted upon by the prosecution only because of an apprehension that the Capital City may be converted into another “Thalassery”.The anxiety expressed could be appreciated if there is any sufficient ground to indicate that the law and order situation in Thiruvananthapuram city will be at peril if petitioners are released on bail. It can also be accepted, if [B.A.No.4597/08] 8 further detention of the petitioners would be of any help to prevent any mishap. 15. But, after the present incident, the only crime committed is by the workers of the rival group, viz., CPI(M). Thereafter, no other crime is reported. It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that the locality is not at present disturbed. It is clear that no crime is reported to have committed by the petitioners' political group. It is on consideration of the prevalent condition of the locality that learned Magistrate has granted bail to the accused in the subsequent crime (Cr. no.127/2008). Even though they were enlarged on bail, there are no political clashes thereafter and hence, it has to be reasonably inferred that it is not likely that a law and order situation will occur at the instance of BJP/RSS workers. They cannot however be detained in further custody for the reason that their opposite group may retaliate once they come out. Though a B.J.P. worker was attacked Marxist party workers and an attempt was allegedly made to commit murder, the assailants were released on bail by the court. But, BJP workers have not retaliated so far and months elapsed now. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that there is no reason to detain the petitioners in custody any more. [B.A.No.4597/08] 9 Hence, the petitioners are granted bail on the following terms and conditions:- 1) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. 2) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for a period of three months. 3) The petitioners shall not enter the limits of the police station which the crime is registered except for compliance of the direction in clause (2). 4) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence while on bail and in case breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. 5) The petitioners shall not leave the Thiruvananthapuram district without prior [B.A.No.4597/08] 10 permission of the learned Magistrate. The application is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.