All these applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail.

2. The petitioners in all the above cases are respectively accused Nos.8, 7, 5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 in crime No.560/2023 of Kondotty police station, Malappuram, registered for having committed offences under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 342 , 355 , 357 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 302 and 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is that a migrant labourer, Rajesh Manji was found near the house of one Varuvallipilakkal Alavi between 00-15 hours and 3.20 hours of 13.5.2023. Alleging that Rajesh Manji came to commit theft, accused Nos.1 to 3 who are the children of Alavi and accused Nos.4 to 9 who are the neighbours of Alavi, severely beat Rajesh Manji from the courtyard of the house, using plastic hose, wooden sticks, chappal and reaper, after tying his hands from behind, using a plastic rope. They further kicked and beat Rajesh Manji repeatedly and took him to the road margin near Tavanur Valiya Juma Masjid in order to destroy the evidence of the beating, removed the banian of Rajesh Manji and also removed the DVR of the CCTV installed in an office situated in between the house of Alavi and Tavanur Valiya Juma 2024:KER:60631 B.A.6042/24 & conn. cases 11 Masjid. Due to the assault of the accused, Rajesh Manji succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the accused committed the above offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the car porch of the house where A1 to A3 resided (father and two sons), a person was lying near the car porch on 13.5.2023 and later, when taken to the hospital, it was reported that he was brought dead. They also suggested that there was every likelihood that the person who died, attempted to commit theft in the house of A1 to A3 and must have fallen from the upstairs. It was on getting information about this that the rest of the accused came. They argued that the final report had already been filed. The prosecution cites around 123 witnesses. They also argued that the trial would be delayed as even copies of the documents under Section 208 of the Cr.P.C. have not yet been furnished. They submitted that they have been arrested on 14.5.2023 and further detention is not required.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor who opposed the bail applications submits that this is one of the rare incidents that happened in Kerala namely mob lynching of a migrant worker. The gravity and seriousness of the crime are evident from the 57 injuries reflected in the postmortem report. Except for nine injuries on the backside, all the other injuries would clearly show that they were multiple, blunt, forced injuries including to the brain. Physical violence and strangulation were also seen in the postmortem report. The deceased is coming from a tribal area of Bihar. All the accused and the witnesses are coming from the same area and if the accused are released on bail, the witnesses will certainly be influenced or intimidated and the 2024:KER:60631 B.A.6042/24 & conn. cases 12 trial will be adversely affected. Under such circumstances, the duration of custody is totally irrelevant and he urged for dismissal of the bail applications.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that A6 was granted bail by the Supreme Court in Crl. A. No. 2906/2024 by orders dated 15 th July, 2024. They would also point out that though the allegation against the 6 th accused was that he had assaulted the deceased with a wooden piece, the Apex Court had mentioned that there were 123 prosecution witnesses and so the likelihood of completion of trial within four months was not possible and accordingly, A6 was enlarged on bail. The learned counsel argues that the finding that the trial will not be over in four months must be held to be applicable to all the accused. It is also stated that the allegations against the other accused are that they hit the deceased with wooden pieces and plastic hose. Since the allegations are more or less similar, they claimed the benefit of the order passed by the Supreme Court in favour of accused No.6.

7. The learned Prosecutor opposes and states that the injury inflicted by the other accused is different from that of the 6 th accused and, therefore, no parity can be drawn based on the order of the Supreme Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the finding of the Supreme Court that it would be impossible to complete the trial in four months because of the number of witnesses must apply to all the other accused as well. Taking note of the length of detention, and the fact that there are no other 2024:KER:60631 B.A.6042/24 & conn. cases 13 antecedents reported against the petitioners, on the ground of parity with the order passed by the Supreme Court, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:-