IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8628 of 2011 CRIME NO.1652 OF 2011 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2(REMANDED IN JAIL) ------------------------------------------------------------- SATHEESAN.S.R., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, SREE SADAN, MOOLIVILAKAM, VAYATHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.MEENAJOHN.M. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031. ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.8712 OF 2011, THE COURT ON 08/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NOS. 8628 & 8712 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed by the accused in the same Crime and therefore they are being disposed of by this common Order. B.A. No. 8628 of 2011 is filed by accused No.2 (Satheesan.S.R.) in Crime No. 1652 of 2011 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The Petitioner in B.A. No. 8712 of 2011 is accused No.1 (Santhosh). The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 11-10-2011. Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 2nd accused (Satheesan) submitted that the said accused is implicated in the case at the instance of some members of K.S.R.T.C. service who belong to C.I.T.U. union, only on the ground that the accused is the gunman of K.Sudhakaran, who is a member of Parliament. It is submitted that it was done so only to tarnish the image of K.Sudhakaran M.P. and thereby to gain political advantage. Sri.Saibi Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused (Santhosh) submitted that there is no BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 2 :: material to connect the said accused with the offence. He also submitted that even if all the allegations are taken as true, an offence under Section 302 would not be attracted. Sri.Ramakumar also submitted that the particular allegation of manhandling attributed to the second accused would never cause the death of the victim. 3. 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 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 BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 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. 4. 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 BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 4 :: 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. 5. The case diary reveals that investigation is being made about the source of money in the possession of the first accused. The investigating agency is also investigating whether any amount was available with the deceased. Among the articles found from the deceased, there is a receipt issued by the Co-operative Bank, Peruvemba, for having pledged gold ornament. The deceased belonged to Peruvemba in Palakkad District. The case diary also reveals that the deceased desired to take a rented house at Perumbavoor for taking his wife and children to Perumbavoor. Investigation also revealed that the mother of the deceased had given Rupees Twelve thousand to the deceased for the purpose of taking a house on rent. The investigating agency does not appear to have arrived at any conclusion on the above aspects. Investigation is going on. 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. BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 5 :: 3. Contusion of scalp 8 x 5 x 0.5 cm on the left side of back of head, overlying the parietal eminence. 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. Sri.K.A.Jaleel, the Additional Advocate General submitted that if the accused are released on bail at this stage, it would cause prejudice to the investigation. The 2nd accused is very influential. It is submitted that the second accused is a policeman and he has close contact with powerful politicians. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 6 :: petitioners would certainly intimidate and influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, if they are released on bail. It is submitted that there are enough materials to connect the petitioners with the crime. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the investigating agency has applied before the court to record the statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The investigation is at the initial stage. The third accused is not identified and arrested so far. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the case was foisted against them and that there is no material to connect them with the offence. The contention of the second accused that the overt acts attributed against him could not result in the death of the victim, is also prima facie, unsustainable. The contention of the first accused that the offence under Section 302 is not attracted and if at all only a lesser offence would be attracted, is a matter to be considered at the time of trial and disposal of the case. Prima facie, it is clear that there are materials to show that the accused persons brutally manhandled Raghu which led to his death. The second accused is a policeman. He is the gunman of a Member of Parliament. Investigation as to the source of money allegedly in the possession of the first accused and the source of money of the accused is going on. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would BAIL APPL. NOS.8628 & 8712 OF 2011 :: 7 :: adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioners may intimidate or influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/