The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application seeking anticipatory bail for the 11th accused in a murder and conspiracy case. The court directed the applicant to surrender for regular bail instead, citing criminal antecedents and the need to interrogate the accused.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; directed to surrender for regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929
Bail Appl..No. 952 of 2008(F) ----------------------------CRIME NO. 722/07 OF E.T. SOUTH POLICE STATION
PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.11:
SURESH, S/O.SUBBAYYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KAVALAMPILLY PADOM, PARADISE ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:
------------------------CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 11th
accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Later, allegations under Section 120B I.P.C. have also been raised in the crime. Altogether there are 12 accused persons now. Accused 1 to 10 were allegedly conspirators. They had also taken part in the incident which took place on 18.11.2007 when the miscreants in two vehicles proceeded to the house of the defacto complainant. They allegedly attacked the victim/deceased, who happened to be present in the house of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was also allegedly attacked. The petitioner's complicity was not revealed at the earlier stage. He was brought on the array of accused later.
Prosecutor at the early stages when this bail application came up
B.A.No. 952 of 2008
2
for hearing and the bail applications of some other accused were considered. Initially it was stated that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner is also one of the conspirators. It is only alleged that the petitioner had role to play after the occurrence and that the petitioner had assured the miscreants of all necessary protection after they accomplished the task of attack on the victim. It is now urged before me that this was a misstatement made earlier and that right from the very beginning there are indications to show that the petitioner was one of the conspirators, who originally schemed the attack, though later there was a subordinate conspiracy between accused 1 to 10 before they proceeded on the mission to the house of the defacto complainant.
B.A.No. 952 of 2008
3
occurrence had gone to the petitioner to apprise him of the alleged misdeeds of the deceased. The prosecution alleges that the genesis of the conspiracy started there and the petitioner had assured the miscreants of protection and had wanted them to unleash an attack on the deceased. What transpired on the date of the occurrence was a continuation of the conspiracy that took place initially in the house of the petitioner and it is now alleged that the petitioner is also part of the conspiracy eventhough there is no specific case that the petitioner was actually present when the miscreants met immediately prior to the incident on 18.11.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that subsequent to the incident the petitioner had offered protection to some of the accused through his friend, 12th accused, who had ensured that the principal miscreants were harboured for some time.
B.A.No. 952 of 2008
4
trauma of arrest and detention. He may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed.
B.A.No. 952 of 2008
5
data collected. Suffice it to say that, having rendered my very anxious consideration to the totality of inputs, notwithstanding the earlier misstatements made at the Bar, I am unable to find any circumstance justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. In coming to this conclusion I have taken note of the relevant statements made by the said witness Rajesh, who runs the travel service allegedly benami in the name of the petitioner. I have taken note of the allegations of what transpired after the incident also. At any rate, I am satisfied that the police is entitled to get an opportunity to custodially interrogate the petitioner.
B.A.No. 952 of 2008
6
proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously.
(R. BASANT) Judge
tm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner charged with murder and conspiracy.
Whether the petitioner's criminal antecedents and role in the conspiracy preclude the exercise of extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURESH
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R.BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
