Kerala High Court
Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2021
B.A.No.5653 of 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5653 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1400/2021 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO.1637 OF 2021 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PRADEEP
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. THANKAPPAN, KALLINGAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
THANIKKATHADAM COLONY ROAD, PUTHUPADY KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE
BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENTS/STATE
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031
BY ADVS.
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE(SR.) - ADGP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5653 of 2021 2
ORDER
The accused in Crime No.1637 of 2021 of Kothamangalam police
station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read
with 34 of the IPC are siblings.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The deceased one Prince P George was residing along with his wife
and 7 year old son at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam district. The first
accused was entertaining enmity towards him pursuant to a quarrel that
took place on 29.06.2021 at 4.p.m between him and the deceased . So
he entrusted the second accused (petitioner herein) to bring the
deceased to the place of occurrence to wreak vengeance upon him. As
per his direction the second accused called the deceased in his mobile
phone and then reached near his house and took him in his scooter to
the place of occurrence under the pretext that he will intervene in the
dispute between the deceased and his brother to settle the same. When
the deceased reached there believing that it was for settlement talk,
there arose a wordy altercation between the first accused and the
deceased and the deceased was pushed down into a drainage channel by
the first accused. When he fell down the first accused who was hiding a
deadly weapon, had stabbed him and caused grievous injuries with the
intention to cause his death. Though he was rushed to the hospital he
succumbed to the injuries . This petitioner aided the first accused to
cause murder of the deceased and they shared the common intention to
commit murder of him. Thus they have committed the aforesaid
offences.
3. The petitioner who is the second accused is in custody since
1.7.2021.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. In fact his
intention was to settle the dispute and create a healthy relationship and
peaceful atmosphere between the deceased and his brother and so he
decided to have a conciliation talk and in order to facilitate the same, he
took him to the place of occurrence. But while they were talking, there
arose some issues and all of a sudden, the first accused stabbed the
deceased. But he is totally innocent and has no participation in the
alleged incident and did nothing to cause murder of the deceased. But
he is undergoing incarceration since the date of his arrest. Hence this
petition for his release on bail, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the bail
application contending that the first accused is a hardcore criminal who is
having very bad criminal background. He is involved in 19 cases
registered before the very same police station. This petitioner is also
involved in another case registered before the very same police station
and he is fully aware of the fact that his brother is having very bad
criminal background. This petitioner has invited the deceased under the
pretext that he is intending to solve the disputes between the deceased
as well the first accused and thus he was fetched from his residence in
the night after 9.30 p.m and took him to the place of occurrence in his
scooter where the first accused was waiting with the weapon.
Immediately after they reached there, the deceased was stabbed by the
first accused after pushing him down and thus prince was murdered .
7. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted a report of the
Inspector of Police, the SHO with the details of the case. That report
would reveal that one lady by name Kumary was residing with the first
accused. She had earlier filed a complaint against the deceased. The wife
of the deceased had also preferred a complaint against the first accused.
The police has called both the parties to the police station. So they were
entertaining enmity towards the deceased. This petitioner was a frequent
visitor to the residence of the deceased. But on the relevant day the
deceased was called secretly by him to the place of occurrence during
the night with the ulterior motive. If it was only conciliation talk he could
have conducted it during day time. So the report prima facie reveal that
this petitioner also shared the common intention to commit murder of
the defacto complainant though the first accused stabbed him to death.
Motive for false implication has not been specifically pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Of-course that question will arise only
at a later stage, when trial proceeds on merits.
8. But, it is revealed from the postmortem certificate attached to
the CD file that the deceased had sustained 2 fatal injuries on his chest
apart from the other injuries and the injuries were caused with a deadly
weapon having a length of 30 cm and width of 3.7 cm. Of course this
petitioner was not having any weapon with him at the time of the
occurrence. But prima facie the records would reveal that he secretly
fetched the deceased from his residence during the night and brought
him to the place of occurrence as if his intention was to settle the issues
pending between the deceased and the first accused. The fact that the
petitioner took the deceased to the place of occurrence to have
conciliation talk with the first accused a history-sheeter that too in the
night itself would prima facie shows that he too shared the common
intention to commit murder of the deceased. In fact the investigating
agency has to go deep into those details and then only they could gather
materials for prosecution, whether this petitioner has also shared
common intention with the first accused to commit his murder. Sudden
meeting of the parties in the late night hours at the instigation of the
petitioner prima facie shows that they had preplanned to commit murder
of Prince, the deceased.
9. The 164 statement of the wife of the deceased would also prima
facie reveals the involvement of this petitioner in committing the brutal
murder of the deceased. So the prosecution is supposed to gather all the
materials required for the investigating agency and for the same
definitely time is required. A free flow of investigation would be possible
only if the petitioner continues in detention for some more time
especially because this petitioner shared a very close relationship with
the deceased and was a frequent visitor to the house of the deceased. If
he is released on bail the chance to influence and intimidate the
witnesses to the case is a valid reason justifying denial of bail at this
stage. On the basis of the material placed on record the possibility or the
danger of absconding of the petitioner also cannot be ruled out. So
granting of bail at this stage to this petitioner would adversely affect the
smooth course of investigation. The petitioner being a person capable of
raising threat to witnesses or influence them and thus thwart the cause
of justice, bail can be refused. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude
that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
It is made clear that the observations made by this court are only
for the purpose of disposal of this application.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V
JUDGE
smm
