IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1072 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.715/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO.103/08 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. DINESH KUMAR @ DINESH (A2) S/O.KUMERESA PILLAI, IDAKARIKKAKATHU VEEDU VATTARATHAL, VETTAMPALLI MURI,ANAD VILLAGE. 2. SREEKANTH, (A3) S/O.VENUGOPALAN SREEJITH BHAVAN, PARAMUKKU,MEENAMKAL, KOTTAKKAKOM MURI,ARYANAD VILLAGE. 3. VINOD,(A4) S/O.SUSEELAN @ ANI, M.V.BHAVAN, NEAR THE PALAM JUNCTION NEAR THE KARIPOOR TEMPLE THEKKUMKARA MURI, KARIPOOR VILLAGE. 4. RENJITH @ RENJU, (A5) THETTIMOODU, ANAD MURI,PANAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1072 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 (after re-arrangement of the array of accused) in a crime registered under Secs.302 and 201 of the IPC. All the 4 petitioners are employees of a bar. The alleged incident took place on 7/2/08 in the bar. The deceased who had gone to the bar was allegedly hit by A1 – Vinod i.e., petitioner No.3 who was originally arrayed as accused No.4. The deceased had gone to the bar for consumption of liquor and it appears that he had already consumed liquor. On getting the hit from the 3rd petitioner, the deceased allegedly fell unconscious in the bar. He suffered injuries also. He lay there for sometime. But later, the petitioners became panicky and he was rushed to the hospital. He was left in the hospital and those who took him there vanished. Theory of a road traffic accident appears B.A. No. 1072 OF 2008 -: 2 :- to have been advanced before the Doctor. The condition of the deceased was serious. He was sent to a higher centre for treatment. He breathed his last. A crime has been registered. All the petitioners were arrested on 10/2/08. They continue in custody from that date. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and that all of them are entitled to be released on bail now. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, at any rate, accused 2, 3 and 4 – petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are certainly entitled for regular bail even accepting the entire allegations raised by the police. No one has a case that the other accused had shared any common intention with the 1st accused before he hit the deceased. Some quarrel which had unexpectedly arisen was the motive for such act on the part of the 1st accused even going by the present case of the prosecution. May be the other accused in order to save the 1st accused had not revealed the entire truth before the Doctor and may have given, even if the case of the prosecution be believed, a different incorrect version. They can be said to be liable only for the offence under Sec.201 of the IPC and cannot, at any rate, be mulcted with liability for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the IPC, submits the learned counsel B.A. No. 1072 OF 2008 -: 3 :- for the petitioners. The offence under Sec.201 of IPC being bailable, the other petitioners may, at any rate, be granted regular bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, after discussions at the Bar, does not oppose the application for regular bail of petitioners 1, 2 and 4 i.e., accused 2, 3 and 4. But the learned Public Prosecutor submits that as regards the 1st accused/3rd petitioner, he is obliged to oppose the application. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor in so far as the 1st accused/3rd petitioner is concerned. But in so far as others are concerned, I am satisfied that they can be granted regular bail now. 5. In the result: (a) The application is allowed in part. (b) Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 i.e., accused 2, 3 and 4 shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: (i) They shall execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) They shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and thereafter as and B.A. No. 1072 OF 2008 -: 4 :- when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. 6. This petition in so far as it relates to the 1st accused/3rd petitioner is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court or the courts below for bail again at a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to 14/3/08. The Investigator shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge