IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3153 of 2009 CRIME NO.58 OF 2009 OF KENICHIRA POLICE STATION CRMP.1304/2009 SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD . PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6: --------------------------------------------------- 1. P.S.JANARDHANAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 60, PULLANTHANIYIL HOUSE, PULPALLY AMSOM, S.BATHERY TALUK. 2. A.V.JAYAN, S/O.VIJAYAN NAMBIAR, AGED 38 YEARS, ALAKUNNEL HOUSE, ATHIRATTUKUNNU, POOTHADI AMSOM. 3. T.R.RAVI, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, MANALVAYAL, IRULAM AMSOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. T.S.SURESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, PAPLASSERY, IRULAM AMSOM, BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD. 5. P.K.SABU @ KODAKKADAN BABU, S/O.KUNHU, AGED 47 YEARS, PADIVEEDE, RATTAKUNDE, KRISHNAGIRI AMSOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.ASHA KAIMAL SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA- (S.I. OF POLICE, CRIME NO.58/2009 OF KENICHIRA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON 23/06/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd June, 2009 O R D E R This Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 2 respectively in Crime No.58 of 2009 of Kenichira Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 345, 365, 368 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Saseendran, the Vice President of Poothadi Grama Panchayat was elected to the Panchayat as a Left Democratic Front candidate. Later, Saseendran joined the Indian National Congress and moved on to the opposite group. Thus in the 21 member Panchayat, the strength of the Left Democratic Front was reduced to ten while the strength of the United Democratic Front was increased as eleven. The United Democratic Front had moved a no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat and it was to be taken up for consideration on 27.4.2009. To avoid the no- confidence motion being passed, the accused persons conspired together B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 2 :: and planned to abduct Saseendran, the Vice President, who had recently crossed over to the camp of the Indian National Congress. 4. In furtherance of the conspiracy, on 20.4.2009 at about 11.30 AM, while Saseendran was standing in the verandah of Poothadi Grama Panchayat office, he was abducted and was forcibly taken by the accused persons in a vehicle. The eyes and mouth of Saseendran were covered and plugged with cloth. Saseendran was taken to a place called Thiruvmbadi and he was confined in a house. 5. Vijayamma, wife of Saseendran, furnished the First Information Statement to the police on 20.4.2009 itself at 16.30 hours and it was registered as Crime No.58 of 2009 under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the First Information Statement. In the First Information Statement, mention is made about the change of political allegiance of Saseendran and about the no-confidence motion. The wife of Saseendran also filed W.P.(Crl) (Habeas Corpus) No.160 of 2009 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce Saseendran before Court. The Writ Petition was filed on 22.4.2009. Notice was ordered in the Writ Petition. On 27.4.2009 at about 7 PM, Saseendran was let free at Koduvally. He contacted his wife over telephone. The Circle Inspector of B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Police, Pulpally went to Koduvally and Saseendran was brought to Ernakulam for being produced before the High Court on 28.4.2009. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by the judgment dated 5.5.2009. While disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court directed the police to conduct investigation of the case effectively and to see that the persons who had taken law into their hands are dealt with in an appropriate manner as provided under law. Before disposal of the Writ Petition, it was observed by the Division Bench that Saseendran was not produced before the Magistrate. Directions were issued to produce Saseendran before the Magistrate to record his statement on 29.4.2009. 6. On 29.4.2009, the statement of Saseendran was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II, Sulthan Bathery. Saseendran stated that at 11.30 AM on 20.4.2009, an identifiable person caught hold of him and he was forcibly pushed into a Qualis vehicle. Saseendran had furnished the names of four persons who were sitting in the vehicle. They are: P.S.Janardhanan (accused No.3), A.V.Jayan (accused No.4), T.R.Ravi (accused No.5) and T.S.Suresh (accused No.6). It is stated that P.S.Janardhanan was the President of Poothadi Grama Panchayat and A.V.Jayan and T.R.Ravi were members of the Panchayat. The aforesaid four persons are known to Saseendran for long. Saseendran stated that since his eyes were covered, he could not B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 4 :: understand to which place the vehicle was being driven. Later, Saseendran was taken out of the Qualis car and put in another car. Janardhanan was sitting on his left side. Saseendran was confined in a house at Thiruvambadi till 27.4.2009. On 27.4.2009, Jayan and Ravi met Saseendran and stated to him that he should disclose to his relatives that he was not abducted, but had gone for pilgrimage on his own volition. They also took down such a statement from Saseendran and he was made to sign the statement. At about 7 PM on 27.4.2009, Saseendran was taken in a red coloured car to Koduvally. Saseendran stated that the vehicle of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was parked there and he was present there. An Omni van was parked nearby and P.S.Janardhanan (Accused No. 3) was found there. Saseendran stated that he was taken by Jayan and Ravi to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, Sassendran was taken in the vehicle of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to Koduvally Police Station where his statement was recorded. The Circle Inspector of Police, Pulpally, took Saseendran for being produced before the High Court. 7. The petitioners were arrested on 2.5.2009 and they are in judicial custody. They moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Sulthan Bathery, which was dismissed as per Annexure II order dated 2.5.2009. The petitioners moved the Court of B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 5 :: the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That bail application was dismissed as per Annexure III order dated 18.5.2009. Again the petitioners moved a bail application before the Sessions Judge. That application was also dismissed as per Annexure IV order dated 27.5.2009. 8. Sri.M.K.Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that different versions are available before the police in respect of the incident and that there is no consistency in the prosecution case. He also submitted that it is very unlikely that the petitioners who are known to Saseendran would directly involve themselves in a crime like this and expose themselves to serious offences. According to the Senior Counsel, this is a politically motivated case and that there is no reliable material to connect the petitioners with the offence. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. He stated that investigation is in progress and that it is necessary to find out the owner of the house where Saseendran was being detained. It is also necessary to find out the role of Sunil Khan in the case and to take into custody the red coloured car in which Saseendran was taken from Thiruvambadi to Koduvally. The statements of several persons are to be B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 6 :: recorded in the process of further investigation. On instructions, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was friction among the two political groups at Thiruvambadi in connection with this case and it was reported in the newspapers. If the petitioners were taken to Thiruvambadi for further investigation of the case, grave law and order problem would have arisen at the place and, therefore, a request for police custody of the petitioners was not made. 10. While considering the Bail Application, a meticulous analysis of the facts and evidence and the contentions put forward by the parties is not necessary. No conclusion on the merits need be arrived at while disposing of the Bail Application. Any such finding would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. The limited question to be considered is whether the accused persons are entitled to be released on bail. 11. The offence alleged against the petitioners is serious in nature. The statement of Saseendran was recorded before the learned Magistrate. In his statement, Saseendran disclosed the incidents which took place on 20.4.2009 and 27.4.2009. The statement of Saseendran would disclose that on 27.4.2009, while he was left at Koduvally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was present at that place and the third B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 7 :: accused, Janardhanan, was also present there. Saseendran has also stated that he was compelled by the accused persons to make a statement that he had gone for pilgrimage on his own accord and that he was not taken forcibly by anybody. The no-confidence motion was to be taken up for consideration on 27.4.2009. The First Information Statement would disclose that two days prior to the incident, P.M.Joy, P.K.Babu (petitioner No.5/accused No.2), A.V.Jayan (petitioner No.2/accused No.4) and T.R.Ravi (petitioner No.3/accused No.5) had met Saseendran at his residence. Saseendran was let free at Koduvally in the evening of 27.4.2009, after consideration of the no-confidence motion was over. The statement of Saseendran would also disclose that the accused were contacting others over phone and messages were being received by them, while Saseendran was being forcibly taken in the vehicle. Investigation of the case is not over. Several persons are to be questioned in connection with the investigation to unearth the necessary facts, the details regarding the involvement of the accused in the offence, the details as to how the offence was planned, executed and completed and to collect all the necessary links in the chain of events. The petitioners are political leaders and activists. There is friction among two political groups in the locality. If the petitioners are released on bail at this juncture, it would seriously affect the proper and effective investigation of the case. The chances of the petitioners influencing and/or intimidating B.A. NO. 3153 OF 2009 :: 8 :: the witnesses cannot be ruled out. Custodial interrogation would be required and, as stated by the Public Prosecutor, it is necessary to take the petitioners to Thiruvambadi to collect the relevant evidence. The reason stated by the Public Prosecutor for the delay in applying for police custody of the petitioners is plausible. 12. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, the necessity for further investigation and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered by the petitioners if they are released on bail, I am of the view that it is not proper to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/