Petitioners sought bail in a murder conspiracy case where they were charged with active participation and infliction of injuries. The Court rejected the plea, noting their presence at the crime scene, criminal antecedents, and potential threat to public order.
Prayer for bail was dismissed. The petitioners remain in judicial custody.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 5664 of 2017 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 3100/2017 & 3464/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AGAINST S.C.No.373 of 2017 ADL.SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 234/2017 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 9,10 & 12:
1. PRABHATH SACHARIAH AGED 24 YEARS, S/O SACHARIAH, MURIPALAYIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.690517.
2. JAYAJITH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O JAYADEVAN, VADAKKE PARAMBIL VEEDU, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.690517.
3. VISHNU LAL AGED 22 YEARS, S/O BINI LAL, VELIYATH KIZHAKKETHIL, THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURACKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.688563.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
SRI.P.R.VIBHU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., J
B.A. No.5664 of 2017
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2017
O R D E R
~~~~~~
Police Station.
B.A.No.5664 /2017
2
deceased, was allegedly involved in the above murder. In order to wreck vengence, the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy. For carrying out their plan, they met at various places jointly and separately. After watching the movements of deceased Jishnu, the accused followed the deceased on 10.2.2017 while he was travelling in a bike along with his friend Suraj and intercepted him. Jishnu and his friend, realising that they would be done away with, took to their heels. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 chased the deceased. The accused Nos. 7 to 10, 12 and 13 cornered Suraj and assaulted him with dangerous weapons like sword stick and axe as a result of which he suffered serious injuries. Meanwhile, inorder to save himself, Jishnu entered a nearby house and locked the door. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 thereafter broke open into the house and confronted Jishnu who was hiding in the first floor. They inflicted as many as 36 injuries on
B.A.No.5664 /2017
3
various parts of his body, as a result of which he breathed
his last.
4.The 1st petitioner was arrested on 15.2.2017, the 2nd petitioner on 18.2.2017 and the 3rd petitioner on 20.2.2017.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the fact that the petitioners have undergone prolonged incarceration is sufficient enough reason to release them on bail. According to the learned counsel, the accused Nos. 11 and 14 to 17 have been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 14.7.2017 in B.A.No.4379 of 2017. The 13th accused, whose role was similar to that of the petitioners herein was enlarged on bail by the Court of Session on 29.5.2017. It is further
B.A.No.5664 /2017
4
submitted that the prosecution had no case that the petitioners herein had inflicted any injury on deceased Jishnu. It was also submitted that this is the third application filed by the petitioners before this Court and according to him, there is no reason why bail should be denied.
7.The learned Public Prosecutor referring to the case diary would submit that the 1st accused has not been arrested till date. Except for accused Nos. 11 and 13 to 17, the rest are still in judicial custody. Insofar as accused No.13 is concerned, it is submitted that he was released on bail based on the fact that he had turned approver. It is further submitted that accused Nos. 11 and 14 to 17 were not present at the scene of crime and no overtacts were alleged. They were arrayed as accused for their role as conspirators. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioners herein were present at the scene of crime
B.A.No.5664 /2017
5
and they had chased the friend of the deceased and had inflicted cut injuries on his body. That being the case, the relief granted to the conspirators cannot be extended to the petitioners. It is finally submitted that as many as three murders were reported within a span of 34 days and the murder of Jishnu was the last. Two rival factions have been targetting the members of the opposing group and there is simmering tension in the locality. Release of the petitioners at this stage would lead to a fresh bout of incidents which would not be conducive to public order.
8.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary which was handed over for perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is evident that the petitioners were also present at the scene of crime. The accused No.1 is still absconding and accused Nos. 2 to 8 are still in judicial custody. It appears that the petitioners herein have criminal antecedents as the
B.A.No.5664 /2017
6
petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be involved in Crime No.995 of 2013 and the petitioner No.3 in Crime No.104 of 2014 and Crime No.155 of 2017. I am unable to accede to the submision of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the continued incarceration of the petitioners will only be punitive. They were present at the scene of crime and specific overtacts are alleged against them in the incident involving the friend of the deceased. Bail was granted to accused Nos. 11 and 14 to 17 as they were implicated solely on the ground that they were conspirators and were not present at the scene of crime. The petitioners stand in a separate footing. Bail was granted to the 13th accused as he had turned approver. Mere fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody from February, 2017 is no reason to entitle them to be released on bail. Though the investigation is over, having appreciated the facts of the instant case, it does not
B.A.No.5664 /2017
7
appear to me that release of the petitioners at this stage will be conducive in the interest of justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the prayer sought for, at this stage.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JUDGE
ps/10/8/17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is maintainable in a murder conspiracy involving active presence at the scene of crime.
Whether prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail releases applies when specific overt acts of injury are alleged.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PRABHATH SACHARIAH
JAYAJITH
VISHNU LAL
STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
