IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5087 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.6306/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR CRIME NO.138/2008 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 : ----------------- SANDEEP, S/O.GANGADHARAN, KUNNAMBATH HOUSE, VATTAPPINI DESOM, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5087 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September,2008 O R D E R Application for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 109, 143, 147 148, 341 and 302 read with section 149 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, a leader of one gunda gang was murdered. As a retaliation to the said murder, another murder was committed by the opposite gunda gang. The 7th accused is the brother-in-law of the victim in the first murder case and he conspired with other accused, arranged money and furnished all aids to the accused to commit murder. The accused No.5 and other accused who are gundas themselves formed into an unlawful assembly and committed murder of deceased Sonyyappan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet has been laid in this case and there is absolutely no iota of evidence against petitioner to implicate him in any offence. It is alleged that he is conspirator and admittedly, he has not BA 5087 /08 -2- takenpart in the incident. Petitioner is falsely implicated without any evidence. The learned counsel cited a decision reported in Sidhartha Vishisht Alias Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2008) 5 SCC 230 to argue that petitioner's innocence has to be presumed and he must be given opportunity to defend his case and if bail is not granted, it will affect even his right to defent his case effectively. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor cited various decisions reported in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav V. CBI through its Director (AIR 2007 SC 451), State of Kerala V. Sugathan (1987 (2) KLT 985, Pullachi Chandu V. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 665), Omar Usman Chamadia V. Abdul and another ((2004) 13 SCC 234), Bimbadhar Pradhan V. State of Orissa (1956 SC 469), etc. and argued that presumption of innocence will not be available as laid down in various decisions and also that in the case referred to in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself, plea of innocence was rejected and bail was denied to the accused in that case. It is submitted that petitioner is a notorious criminal and ten crimes of various nature were registered against him. Even the witness could be questioned in full, only after the arrest of the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail, it is BA 5087 /08 -3- possible that the trial become mockery. It is also submitted that three cases ended in acquittal, since witnesses turned hostile under intimidation and influence of petitioner. As per intelligence report, another bloodshed is possible, if the accused is released on bail. 5. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that as per the instruction received, the case is posted for framing of charge tomorrow. At this stage of trial, if petitioner is released on bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused 1 to 6 are hired gundas and they were from various places and they have no grudge or enmity against the person who was murdered. They were arranged only by petitioner herein. 6. On hearing both sides, it appears that the case is posted for framing of charge. If there is no evidence against petitioner, it is likely that petitioner may be discharged. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be proper for this Court to go into the merits of the case and say on the basis of the materials available, whether petitioner can be presumed to be innocent or other wise. It is sufficient the trial is expedited. BA 5087 /08 -4- 7. The Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Thrissur is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the same within two months from today. Petition is dismissed. Hand over this order. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.