Dismissed

Bilal Saji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Nov 2018Bail Appl./6855/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected bail applications filed by two accused persons indicted for conspiracy murder. Examining the evidence regarding a sudden clash between student groups, the court found indications of prior conspiracy and refused bail, dismissing the applications.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications for petitioners rejected; petitions dismissed holding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and dangerousness.

Bilal Saji Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6302 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1548/2018 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ADIL BIN SALIM,S/O.MUHAMMED SALIM AGED 23 YEARS CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL STATION ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CONTROL ROOM, KOCHI CITY

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PP. SRI. S. SAJJU.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6855/2018, THE COURT ON 30/11/2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶22

FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 6855 of 2018

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1814/2018 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 29-09-2018

¶25

CRIME NO. 1548/2018 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶26

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 4 & 5:

¶27

1 BILAL SAJI,

¶28

AGED 19 YEARS S/O SAJI, CHIRACKAL VEEDU, PANTHANAD P.O., KANGAZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM

¶29

2 FAROOK AMANI, AGED 19 YEARS

¶30

S/O.ISMAIL, NARAKATHINAMKUZHI HOUSE, CHUNGAPPARA, KOTTANKAL, KULATHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶31

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶32

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶33

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

¶34

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶35

¶36

(CRIME NO.1548/2018 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)

¶37

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6302/2018, THE COURT ON 3/11/2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶39

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

[ Bail Appl. 6302/2018 ,Bail Appl..6855/2018 ]

¶42

Petitioners are indicted as accused in Crime No.1548/2018 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam for offences punishable under sections 120B,143,147,148,341,506(ii), 323,324,326,307,302,201,212 read with section 149 IPC.

¶43

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 2/7/2018 at about 12.30 a.m.,accused 1 to 16 along with few other accused, who are the workers of a Student Political Organisation, by name Campus Front of India, formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common intention of committing murder and attacked few students of the college who are the members of the another students political organisation. As a result of the attack, one of the student of the second group sustained fatal injury and succumbed to it. Two other persons of same group sustained injuries. One among them sustained grievous injuries. They were rushed to the hospital. Crime was registered and in the course of investigation, few of the accused including the petitioners herein were arrested.

¶44

8^th accused in the revised list of accused is the petitioner in

¶45

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶46

¶47

BA No.6302/2018. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the petitioners in B.A.No.6855/2018. Petitioners are in custody since the date of their arrest. Petitioners seek bail contending that even according to the prosecution, there was a clash between two groups of students which led to the above incident. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there was a conspiracy and that there was no meeting of mind of accused to commit murder of the deceased person or any other person. It was contended that, the facts indicate that there was a clash between two group of persons in which both sides attacked each other and in the course of the attack, three persons sustained injuries. Petitioners herein have not committed any overtact nor facilitated commission of crime. It was contended that, the incident arose not inside the college campus as projected and the scene of occurrence was outside the college campus and on the public road. There was no pre meditated act since the facts disclosed eruption of sudden push and pull.

¶48

After investigation, charge sheet was filed against 16 accused on 25/9/2018. Seven accused are still at large and absconding charge sheet has been filed against them.

¶49

Facts disclose that on 2/7/2018 at 9.30 a.m.one group of students, who belonged to the injured group, had written slogans on the various parts of the college, including outer wall, inviting freshers to the college. It seems that, the group in which accused are involved,

¶50

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶51

¶52

objected to it. There was some verbal altercation between the two groups in the course of the action. It was reported to the above group that, at about 12 midnight the Campus Front Group had pasted posters above the writings of the other group who had already written on it. It was questioned by the other group. Group led by one Mohammed including few outsiders belonging to the Popular Front Group came to the spot which was questioned by the other group. The Popular Front Group refused to remove their posters. There was a sudden altercation in which three persons sustained injuries, due to the usage of knives.

¶53

Records reveal that, altogether there are 16 accused. All of them belonged to the Popular Front group and its ally group. It includes few students of that college and several outsiders. When the entire incident is looked from a larger perspective, it appears that overwriting was done by the group for creating an unnecessary provocation as is revealed from their subsequent conduct. There are materials to indicate that even before the incident,there were indications that some untowarad incident was likely to happen in the college on that day. According to the prosecution, verbal altercation suddenly erupted. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the FIS to contend that even according to the first informant, there was an altercation in the course of which injured sustained knife injuries. However,the versions of the eye witnesses indicate that verbal

¶54

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶55

¶56

altercations were immediately followed by unilateral attack by one group on the other and the attacked group sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, the first accused showed the deceased to the assailant. 9^th accused wrongfully confined him. Pursuant to it, 10^th accused stabbed on his chest. He died. 11^th accused is stated to have wrongfully restrained CW2 and the 10^th accused stabbed on stomach. He sustained serious injuries. 13^th accused stabbed on the buttock of CW3. Version of the eye witnesses indicate that accused Nos.2,11 and 14 slapped and hit CW4. With a punch block, 3^rd accused hit on CW6. 15^th accused is stated to have hit CW4 with a stick. After the incident, all of them escaped from the scene.

¶57

According to the prosecution, specific overtacts are attributed to each of the accused. It seems that, each of the injured sustained one injury each. Single injury was fatal for the deceased. It seems that some of the accused came with deadly weapons. Possibility of a concerted action cannot be ruled out. CDR shows that just before and after the incident, some of the accused had contacted each other. Nature of the attack and unilateral method of inflicting injury and that only the one group sustaining injury leads to possible conclusion ofprior conspiracy and organised attack.

¶58

Having considered the above facts, I feel that each of the accused has played a some role in the incident. Hence, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶59

BA No. 6302 & 6855/2018

¶60

¶61

Bail application fails and are dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

Bilal Saji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bilal Saji 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

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Hashir K Vs the State of Kerala

Shamshad Vs State of Kerala

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Adil Bin Salim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Station

Anwar Thasli.P Vs State of Kerala