IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1396 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 31/2008 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ PRASANTH KUMAR, S/O. NANDA KUMAR AGED 26 YEARS, "NANDANAM" PUTHALATH HOUSE KALAMASSERY, FERRY ROAD, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. C.I.OF POLICE, HILL PALACE CIRCLE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1396 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.13 (Prasanth Kumar) in Crime No.31 of 2008 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District. Originally, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.5. Later, his rank was changed as accused No.13. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons in the case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 307 and 120 B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to assassinate Abdul Rahim alias K.M.R. Guru, who was running a Spiritual Palace at Pookkadasseri. It is alleged that a section of the Muslims believe that the ideologies of K.M.R. Guru and his activities are against Islam. On earlier occasions, unsuccessful attempts were made to assassinate K.M.R. Guru. It is alleged that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy at various mosques. One of the accused persons B.A. No.1396/2010 2 (Abdul Rahim), impersonating himself as Abdulla, succeeded in getting access to the Spiritual Palace run by the Guru and became Guru’s disciple. Guru was made to believe by Abdul Rahim that he would arrange persons for purchasing the scrap electrical goods worth Rs. One crore belonging to the former and that he had contacts with dealers of scrap at Bangalore and Hyderabad. In furtherance to the conspiracy, the accused persons invited Guru to a place near Infopark at Kakkanad. Deadly weapons like swords, axe and explosives were collected by the accused. Vehicles were also arranged. K.M.R. Guru was informed over mobile phone to reach at the place near Godrej Company, near Infopark. On 10/1/2008, K.M.R. Guru and his associates came to the place in a Scoda car. The 5th accused, riding on a motor bike, led Guru to the place. Guru and his associates were led to the compound of a building under construction. Accused No. 4 shook hands with Guru. At that time, 2nd accused attacked Guru with an axe. One of his disciples was also injured due to the attack with the axe. Guru and his disciples attempted to escape. The other accused persons came out of the vehicle and wrongfully restrained Guru, pushed him to B.A. No.1396/2010 3 the ground and inflicted deadly wound on his neck with the axe. Some other accused hurled bombs at Guru and his associates. Under the belief that Guru was dead, the assailants escaped from the scene. The petitioner was arrested on 13/12/2008. 4. The petitioner filed B.A. No.1209 of 2009, which was dismissed by the order dated 24/3/2009. Even thereafter, he filed another Bail Application, which was also dismissed. 5. The learned Director General of Prosecution very vehemently opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that accused No.1, Thadiyantavida Nazir is involved in several cases involving terrorist activities, some of which are now being investigated by the National Investigation Agency. It is also submitted by the learned Director General of Prosecution that accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in this case were killed in an encounter with security forces in Kashmir, when they tried to cross the border. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it would be difficult to procure the arrest of accused Nos.4,5 and 9, who are absconding. 6. To a query by the Court, the learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that though some of the alleged B.A. No.1396/2010 4 terrorists involved in several terrorist activities are also accused in the present case, no element of any terrorist activity against the State is involved in the present case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13/12/2008. Charge sheet was filed in the case on 9/3/2009. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The case is now pending as S.C.No.268/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. 8. As per the order dated 18/03/2010 in B.A. No.1346 of 2010, bail was granted to accused No.15 (M.E.Ali). 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it is necessary to detain the petitioner further. I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track III) North Paravur, subject to the following conditions:- B.A. No.1396/2010 5 A) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Thrikkakara Police Station between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, until further orders; B) The petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track III) North Paravur within one week. If the petitioner does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn to by him to that effect shall be filed before the court within one week; C) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Ernakulam District until further orders, except with the prior permission of the trial court; D) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; E) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm