Naveen vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6169 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
   MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 1259 OF 2023
   CRIME NO.326/2022 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICESTATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

    1        NAVEEN,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O SREENATH, NAYANAM HOUSE,
             KUNNANKAD, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD -, PIN - 678005
    2        ANEESH, AGED 30 YEARS
             S/O CHANDRAN, KUNNAMKAD HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD,
             MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD -, PIN - 678005
    3        SABREESH,AGED 26 YEARS
             S/O KRISHNAN, KUNNAMKAD HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD,
             MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678005
    4        SUJEESH,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O SURESH, KUNNANKAD VEEDU,
             KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD -, PIN - 678005
             BY ADVS.
             S.RAJEEV,V.VINAY,M.S.ANEER
             SARATH K.P.,PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
             ANILKUMAR C.R.

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

             STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031
             BY PP SRI.JOBY JOSEPH

             DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10)
             P.NARAYANAN, SENIOR G.P. AND ADDL.PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR()
             SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.()



        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2023,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BA No.1259 of 2023                            2




                                VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                .................................................................
                               B.A. No.1259 of 2023
                .................................................................
                   Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023

                                         ORDER

This is an application for regular bail filed by accused Nos. 1

to 4 in Crime No.326 of 2022 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 144,

147, 148, 114, 115, 120 B, 201, 212, 341, 323, 324, 302 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7(a), 7(b) read with

Section 27(3) of the Arms Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 14.08.2022 at 9.15 pm, the

accused Nos.1 to 8 were fixing a flex in connection with Sreekrishna

Jayanthi, which was resisted by one Shajahan, the deceased, who was

the secretary of CPI(M), Kottekkad East Branch, and at that time,

accused Nos.2, 3 and others who were present there had an altercation

and accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 inflicted cut injury on different parts of the

body of Shajahan. He later succumbed to the injuries. Accused No.9

along with other accused in the crime, had indulged in the conspiracy and

abetted the crime and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are

in custody from 18.08.2022 onwards and investigation is over and the

final report has been filed and therefore their continued detention is not

required for the purpose of the investigation. Petitioners further submit

that accused nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were granted bail as per order dated

20.01.2023 in B.A. No.10498 of 2022, 9 th accused was granted bail as

per order dated 20.01.2023 in B.A. No.10464 of 2022, accused no. 10

was granted bail in B.A. No.10042 of 2022 and accused nos. 11 and 12

were granted bail in B.A. No. 8809 of 2022.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the

application for bail mainly contending that on two occasions, the accused

conspired for the murder of the deceased ie., on 26.07.2022 and on

04.08.2022, in the first conspiracy, accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 9 and 10

participated and in the second conspiracy on 04.08.2022, accused Nos.1,

3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 participated. It is further submitted that the deceased was

murdered brutally as is evident from the post-mortem report. It is also

submitted that the petitioners have criminal antecedents in as much as 1st

accused is involved in yet another case whereas the 2 nd accused is

involved in six other cases, 3rd and 4th accused are involved in one case

each.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

investigation is over and the charge sheet is already filed and there is no

chance for the trial of the case to be completed within a reasonable time.

I have called for a report from the trial court concerned regarding the

present stage of the case and it is reported that the Forensic Science

Laboratory Report on the analysis of various items forwarded to the

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur has not been returned so

far and the trial of the case can only be commenced after getting the

Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Learned counsel for the petitioners

relying on the judgment in Union of India v. Majeed, 2021 (4) KLT SN

49 (C.No. 32) SC, submitted that when a timely trial could not be possible

and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of

time, the court should ordinarily enlarge the accused on bail. The learned

counsel also relies on the judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2021 (1)

KLT SN 36 (C.No. 40) SC to contend that the court should not refuse bail

as a mark of disapproval of former conduct of the accused and the object

of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Learned Public Prosecutor

relied on the judgment in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @

Pappu Yadav and another, (200) 7 SCC 528 to contend that even

though the accused has the right to make successive applications for

grant of bail, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh

grounds which persuaded it to take a different view from the one taken in

the earlier application.

I have considered the bail application of the petitioners

earlier and by Annexure A1 order dated 20.01.2023 rejected the same.

The petitioners are in custody from 18.08.2022 and the investigation is

over and the final report has been filed. From the report submitted by the

trial court, the trial can commence only after getting the Forensic Science

Lab Report and therefore there is no chance for the trial to be completed

within a reasonable time. Taking all these aspects into consideration,

though I have rejected the bail application as per Annexure A1, I am

inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on the following stringent

conditions.

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.100000/- (rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each

for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the trial court on all

posting dates without fail, except specifically exempted by the trial court.

(iii) The petitioners shall not enter the jurisdiction of Palakkad

District till the completion of the trial except for complying with condition

no. (ii) or to attend any other court proceedings.

(iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while

on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

investigating officer in Crime No.326 of 2022 of Malampuzha Police

Station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for

cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks