IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 1ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 116 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 544/07 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. VIPIN,S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 21 YEARS DEEPIKA, ONDEONPARAMBA, KAKKAD PO, KANNUR. 2. VIKESH,S/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 24 YEARS KAYALIL HOUSE, KANNOTHUMCHAL MUNDAYAD .PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAGESH,S/O.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 22 YEARS MADATHIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, KAKKAD PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. NISHIL,S/O. NARAYANAN,AGED 24 YEARS VINIL NIVAS, KAKKAD PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. MITHUN,S/O.PRAKASHAN,KAKKINCHAL HOUSE ONDEONPARAMBA,KAKKAD PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. RAJESH,S/O.GOPI.K.,CHALICHI HOUSE ONDEONPARAMBA,KAKKAD PO, KANNUR . 7. AKSHIL,S/O.PRADEEPAN, 19 YEARS, PUTTIAM NAGAR, KAKKAD, KANNUR-2. 8. SARATH CHANDRAN,S/O.CHANDRA MOHAN AGED 21 YEARS, MELE CHOVVA, CHOVVA PO, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 116 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioners are accused 2 to 9. Altogether there are 10 accused persons. The first accused was arrested on 20.11.2007 and has already been enlarged on bail as per order of the learned Sessions Judge dt. 4.1.2008, it is submitted. The petitioners were arrested on various dates between 20.11.07 to 26.11.2007. The petitioners are very young persons. They continue in custody from such dates. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the deceased and his friend, who were walking along the road on the night of 21.10.2007 at about 9.45 p.m., were attacked by a group of miscreants. The attack was with iron rods. Both the deceased and his friend suffered injuries. They had no clue of who the assailants were. Both the accused and the injured were friends B.A.No. 116 of 2008 2 and were leading a respectable life. To the doctor the deceased is alleged to have stated that the persons who covered their heads, had attacked them. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. His friend, the injured, lodged the F.I. statement. Investigation led the police to the conclusion that the deceased and the first accused were friends and were working under one common contractor as Painters. The contractor had shown greater affection to the deceased and this allegedly aroused in the mind of the first accused jealousy and ill-will against the deceased. On account of this animosity, the first accused allegedly wanted his friends, A2 to A10, to attack the deceased. He was attacked. His friend, who was also with the deceased, happened to suffer injuries. In the course of investigation the police filed report to array all the ten accused persons in the crime. Investigation is not complete. A10 has not been arrested so far. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. Even going by the case of the prosecution, there was no intention whatsoever to cause the death of the deceased. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The first accused, B.A.No. 116 of 2008 3 allegedly the kingpin who organised the attack, having already been enlarged on bail, there is no necessity of insisting that the petitioners must remain in custody any longer. They may now be granted regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions, prays the learned counsel. 4. The learned Prosecutor does no oppose the application. He submits that the investigation is not complete. A10 has not been arrested. In as much as the first accused has already been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application for regular bail of the petitioners. He prays that appropriate and strict conditions may be imposed on the petitioners. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted bail subject to appropriate and strict conditions. 6. In the result: 1) This application is allowed. 2) The petitioners shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions. B.A.No. 116 of 2008 4 (a) The petitioners shall execute bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to be satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) They shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. for a period of three months and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (c) During the said period of three months, the petitioners shall not enter the Sessions Division of Tellicherry without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate, except for the purpose of complying with condition (b) above. (R. BASANT) Judge tm