Allowed

Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2017Bail Appl./8466/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application for regular bail filed by Accused No.3 in a murder conspiracy case. The Court observed that while the investigation is ongoing, it has progressed significantly, and the main accused have already been released. The Court found no need for further detention and granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding witness protection and restrictions on movement.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; release on bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- each including conditions to report to IO, not enter police jurisdiction, avoid witnesses, and not leave state.

Biju Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8466 of 2017 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO.200/2017 OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶8

BIJU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.THOMAN, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, PONNAMBIYOLI DESOM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY SRI.K.A.ANAS, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

============================

¶17

B.A.No.8466 of 2017

¶18

============================ Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein is the third accused in Crime No.200 of 2017 of the Athirappilly Police Station, Thrissur, registered under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the petitioner's third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. His first application was dismissed by this Court on 09.11.2017, and the second application was dismissed on 24.11.2017. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.10.2017.

¶21

This crime relates to the murder of one Libin. The crime was registered on the complaint made by his brother. The prosecution case is that with the object of killing Libin as part of a conspiracy hatched by this petitioner and others, the first accused followed Libin and his brother in a tipper, escorted by this petitioner and the second accused on a motorcycle, and at the place of incident they obstructed the victim, attacked him with weapons, and thus committed the murder of Libin. The

¶22

B.A.No.8466 of 2017 2

¶23

prosecution records reveal the active involvement and role of the accused Nos.1 and 2, and the allegation as against this petitioner is that he accompanied the second accused as pillion as part of a conspiracy hatched by them all. Though specific role or overt act is not seen alleged against this petitioner, the prosecution records reveal his complicity or involvement as a conspirator or facilitator. It appears that when interrogated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated the facts in favour of the prosecution, but later he retracted, and stated otherwise in favour of the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶24

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶25

It is submitted that this Court has already granted bail to the accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the main accused. There is reason to believe that the Investigating Officer has gone a long way with investigation. The others were granted bail by this Court on a consideration that major part of investigation was over at that time. In the above circumstances, I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody.

¶26

B.A.No.8466 of 2017 3

¶27

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the court below having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶28

a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶29

b. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of the Athirappilly Police Station for two months.

¶30

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶31

d. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the trial court or the committal court, as the case may be.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

// True Copy // P.A. To Judge

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.S. Sreenivasan Vs State

T.K.Aboobacker Vs Drugs Inspector,Kozhikode

G.Mohan Vs a.Jaya Kumar

Santhosh Kumar Vs Sajad Sahir

Y.Rama Naik Vs Station House Officer

Radhamani Amma Vs the State of Kerala