Amal R.S vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6203 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
        MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 4360 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT,CRL.MC 1135/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT- VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/III ADDITIONAL MACT
 CRIME NO.303/2023 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7:

            AMAL R.S
            AGED 25 YEARS, S/O RAJAN Y, KUKKURUNI KIZHAKKETHATTU
            PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHAROOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 125.

            BY ADVS.
            R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
            M.KIRANLAL
            MANU RAMACHANDRAN
            SAMEER M NAIR
            GEETHU KRISHNAN
            SAILAKSHMI MENON


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
            DISTRICT - 695 131.

            BY ADVS.
            ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, KERALA
            ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
            ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
            PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SMT.SREEJA V
            SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - C.K.SURESH


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. No. 4360 of 2023
                                     2



                    BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  ...................................................
                   BAIL APPL. No. 4360 of 2023
               .................................................................
               Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023

                                ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime No.303/2023 of

Marayamuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Rural,

alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 and

212 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short

'IPC).

3. According to the prosecution, the 1 st accused had driven

a lorry bearing registration No. KL-20-J-0244 in a rash and

negligent manner and collided with a motor cycle driven by one

Mr. Renjith, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. Initially

the crime was registered under Section 304A IPC. During the

course of investigation, it was realized that the death of the

deceased occurred due to a pre-planned murder and hence the

offences were altered and Section 302 IPC and allied sections

were incorporated.

4. During the course of the investigation, it was realized that BAIL APPL. No. 4360 of 2023

petitioner was part of the conspiracy having informed the

movement of the deceased to the other accused and thus he was

also added as an accused.

5. I have heard Sri. Rajesh R., the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. C.K Suresh the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Adv. Rajesh R., contended that the only allegation against

the petitioner is about a telephone call which he had with the 1 st

accused who was his friend. Other than a telephone call there are

no materials to implicate the petitioner as an accused and

therefore since he is willing to abide by any condition that may be

imposed upon him and taking into reckoning the initial offence

alleged against the 1st accused under 304A, the investigation now

proceeding is based on conjectures and surmises and hence the

petitioner ought to be released on anticipatory bail.

7. Sri. C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the application and submitted that the investigation has revealed

a well planned murder, wherein petitioner had played the pivotal

role. It was further submitted that, on the date of accident, there

were several telephone calls between the petitioner and the 1 st

accused, as petitioner was given the charge of intimating the

movement of the deceased to pave the way for the dastardly act. BAIL APPL. No. 4360 of 2023

According to the prosecutor in the absence of a custodial

interrogation, the investigation would be totally prejudiced and

therefore bail application ought to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. Admittedly the F.I.R had included only Section 279 and

304A of the IPC. As the investigation progressed, on the basis of

materials collected, the sections were altered to 302 and 120B

IPC. The materials now available with the prosecution after the

investigation, indicates several calls between the petitioner and

the 1st accused who was none other than the driver of the lorry.

10. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it is

evident that custodial interrogation is essential to unravel the

truth of the allegations. Without custodial interrogation, as the

prosecutor rightly submitted, the investigation will be prejudiced.

On an appreciation of the submissions of both counsel, I am

satisfied this is not a fit case where the protective cover of an

anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, I find no merit in the bail application and it is

dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Rvm BAIL APPL. No. 4360 of 2023

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4360/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.303/2023 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL DISTRICT DATED 09.04.2023.

Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C NO. 1135/2023 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.