Kerala High Court
Sanal vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2024
2024:KER:84075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9037 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1225/2020 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 SANAL
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.SADANANDAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, MUTTICHUR DESOM,PADIYAM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641
2 SREERAG @ MARAS
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.VENUGOPAL, THEKKOOT HOUSE, THANNIYAM DESOM,
THANNIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680565
3 VINAYAKAN @ AMBADI
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.SOORYAN, PALAKKAL HOUSE, MANALOOR DESOM, MANALOOR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641
4 SANDEEP @ GUJANDY
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.HARIDASAN, PARAPULLY HOUSE, ANTHIKKAD DESOM
ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641
5 SAYISH
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.SURESH, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, MANALOOR DESOM, MANALOOR
VILLAGE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680617
6 AKHIL
2
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.SHAJI, MOOTHRATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANNIAM DESOM,
THANIAM VILLAGE, PIN - 680565
BY ADVS.
P.K.VARGHESE
M.T.SAMEER
DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
JERRY MATHEW
REGHU SREEDHARAN
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV.V.K. SUNIL, SR.G.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Surakhsa Sanhita, seeking regular bail.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.1225 of
2020 of Anthikkad Police Station, which was registered against them for
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 324, 326, 302, 392,
506(ii), 212, 109, and 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, the deceased Nidhil, who was an
accused in Crime No.964/2020 of Anthikkad Police Station, was
murdered by the petitioners on 10.10.2020 at about 11.15 A.M as a
retaliation of the murder of one Adharsh, in respect of which, the Crime
No.964/2020 was registered by the Anthikkad Police Station. As part of
the investigation, the 1st accused was arrested on 11.10.2020, 2 nd
accused was arrested on 12.10.2020, 3rd and 4th accused were arrested
on 24.10.2020 and 5th and 6th accused were arrested on 13.10.2020.
Since then, they have been under judicial detention. Even though the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail on several occasions,
all the said applications were rejected, taking note of the seriousness of
the allegations and also that the petitioners have criminal antecedents
for getting involved in similar kinds of offences. The last bail application
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
was dismissed as per Annexure 10 order dated 31.05.2024, wherein this
Court took note of the report submitted by the trial Court to the effect
that the trial of the case can be completed on or before 31.12.2024.
4. The case of the petitioners is that, even though the trial of the
case was scheduled on 03.09.2024 to 12.09.2024, the same was
rescheduled due to the inconvenience of the Public Prosecutor. Later, the
trial was again scheduled on 19.10.2024 to 29.10.2024. On that day,
even though the learned counsel for the accused was ready for trial,
none of the witnesses turned up. Therefore, the trial was again
rescheduled to 04.11.2024 to 15.11.2024. However, the grievance of
the petitioners is that the trial has now been stayed by this Court at the
instance of the defacto complainant; the reason that they have already
moved the Government to appoint a special Public Prosecutor in the
matter, and the said process is pending consideration. Thus, the
apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
trial is not likely to take place in the near future.
5. Heard, Sri. P.K Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri. V.K Sunil, the learned Public Prosecutor,
appearing for the State.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly highlighted the
long period of incarceration of the petitioners, which extended to 4
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
years, and the violation of their right for speedy trial, on account of the
same. It was pointed out that the last bail application was dismissed by
this Court despite the long period of incarceration, taking note of the fact
that the trial was supposed to be completed on or before 31.12.2024.
Now in view of the subsequent developments as referred to above, it is
highly unlikely that the trial could be completed within the said period.
It is pointed out that there are 103 witnesses to be examined in this
case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the
bail application by contending that the allegations raised against the
petitioners are very serious and there are ample materials indicating
their involvement in the offences. As per the prosecution case, all the
petitioners have physically participated in the offcences and all of them
have criminal antecedents as they were involved in several other cases
of similar nature. Besides, it was also pointed out that the crime itself
occurred as a retaliation for another murder allegedly committed by the
deceased in this case, and it was part of a rivalry between two groups.
Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor sought the dismissal of the
application.
8. I have carefully gone through the records. In support to the
contention based on the long incarceration of the petitioner and
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
consequential violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the decisions
rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @
Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 KHC
6380] and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P and Another [2020 (11)
SCC 648]. In Sheikh Javed Iqbal case (supra), after referring to
various decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [2024 KLT Inline 1744]
and Union of India v. K.A Najeeb [2021 SCC Online SC 50], it was
observed as follows:
"It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in
a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a
fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the
more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded
expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the
prosecution to oppose bail of the accused - undertrial on the ground
that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the
ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in
sight for the trial to conclude."
9. Similarly, with respect to the seriousness of allegations and
the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, it was observed by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari case (supra), that the
serious nature of the offences and the involvement of the accused in
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
several criminal cases by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of
prayer for bail.
10. When coming back to the facts of this case, it is evident that
the petitioners have been in custody since October 2020, and more than
4 years have been elapsed. Of course it is true that, there are serious
allegations against the petitioners for getting physically involved in the
murder which is the subject matter of the crime and the petitioners have
criminal antecedents as well. However, in the light of the observations
made by the Honourable Supreme Court as referred to above, the
deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioners on account of the delay
in the trial cannot be lost sight of. As observed by the Honourable
Supreme Court, the speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental
right of an accused as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Here, it is evident that, even after 4 years, the trial is likely to
take some more time. Therefore, in the light of the observations made
by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, I
am inclined to grant bail with appropriate conditions to ensure that the
petitioners will not interfere with the process of trial .
In such circumstances, this application is allowed by granting bail
to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bonds
for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties
for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. .
ii) The petitioners shall appear before the trial court as and when
required.
iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of similar nature
while on bail.
iv) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in
any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any
witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
v) The petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of
the trial Court.
vi) The petitioners shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction
of Thrissur District pending trial, except for the purpose of appearing
before the trial court or complying with the conditions of bail.
vii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the
jurisdictional Court. If any of the petitioners do not have passports, such
petitioner or petitioners shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file
the same before the said Court.
B.A No. 9037 Of 2024
2024:KER:84075
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional
Magistrate shall be empowered to consider the application for
cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
JUDGE
rpk/pkk
