Dismissed

Ajesh@Appu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8843/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused bail to three accused charged with murdering a community leader to incite communal discord. The bench held that the sensitive nature of the region and serious allegations precluded release, prioritizing justice and public interest over granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail to the three petitioners was refused; the Sessions Judge was directed to expedite the proceedings.

Ajesh@Appu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8843 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 210/2017 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1 AJESH @ APPU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYAN, NEAR BHAJAN MANDIRAM, AYYAPPA NAGAR, KUDGUPPE, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶9

2 NIDHIN. S., 19 YEARS, S/O SIVANANDA, NIDHIN NIVAS, CHALLA, KUDGUPPE, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶10

3 AKHILESH @ AKHILU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN, KESAVA KUDEERAM, GANGAI, KUDGUPPE, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 031.

¶14

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 031).

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

B.A. Nos. 8843 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of January , 2018

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

~~~~~~

¶23

1.This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

¶24

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 210 of 2017 of the Kasargod Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 153 A, 295, 201, 449, 302 read with section 34 of the IPC .

¶25

3.The petitioners herein are alleged to be right wing Hindus. Kasragod District is communally, a highly sensitive area, and there are constant clashes between extreme right wingers of the Hindu and Muslim Community. Innumerable crimes have been registered against both the groups and though all efforts possible were taken by law enforcement authorities to put a lid to this constant strife and killing, commission of such crimes continues unabated. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are having criminal

¶26

B.A.No.8843/2017 2

¶27

antecedents and they are accused of having committed several criminal acts on members of the other community. With intent to create discord and feelings of enmity between the two groups, they are alleged to have secured the services of the 3^rd accused. Using the bike belonging to the brother of the 3^rd accused, they are alleged to have gone to the Old Churi Juma Masjid at RD Nagar. The deceased Mohammed Riyas was the Ustad there. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have inflicted fatal injuries on the body of the deceased consequent to which he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, they are alleged to have made good their escape in the bike ridden by the 3^rd accused. According to the prosecution, the petitioners intent was to fuel the communal fire and promote feelings of hatred and ill will between Hindus and Muslims and thus disrupt peace and communal harmony.

¶28

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are young men and they are innocent of the allegations. The FIR is silent as regards the name of the

¶29

B.A.No.8843/2017 3

¶30

perpetrators. The petitioners are made the scapegoats purely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioners 1 and 2 were assaulted by some persons prior to the incident and it is for that sole reason that they have been implicated solely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Final report has been laid and no purpose would be served in keeping them in prolonged custody. Insofar as the 3^rd petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that he had harbored accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶31

5.The prayer of the learned counsel is opposed by the Additional Director General of Prosecution. The learned ADGP submits that the area is communally very sensitive and there are constant attacks and counter attacks between members of the different communities. It is submitted that as many as 22 crimes have been registered in the recent past against both groups which involve offenses under section 302 of the IPC as well. It is urged that the integrity of the process cannot be maintained if the petitioners are released as there is every likelihood that the petitioners would manage to intimidate and

¶32

B.A.No.8843/2017 4

¶33

threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. It is submitted that serious allegation is leveled against the 3^rd accused and it is in the bike ridden by him that the petitioners had come to perpetrate the murder and had later escaped from the scene. It is further argued that taking note of the seriousness of the offence, the investigation was completed in record time and the final report was laid within 3 months. CW

¶34

2 and CW 3 are the witnesses who had identified the petitioners and there is danger to their life as well. Summons have been issued to the witnesses and the case is posted for trial on 5.3.2018. Restriction of movements of the petitioners is necessary to infuse confidence in the terror stricken area is the submission.

¶35

6.I have considered the submissions and have gone through the

¶36

case diary.

¶37

7.I find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. The apprehension expressed by the state in the facts of the instant case cannot

¶38

B.A.No.8843/2017 5

¶39

be dismissed lightly .The details of cases registered at the Kasargod Police Station reveals the situation prevailing there. It appears that both the rival groups are aiming at the neck of the other. When an apprehension is expressed by the prosecution with solid facts and figures of the sensitive situation prevailing in the area, the same cannot be brushed aside. The deprivation of freedom of the petitioners at this stage is not for any punitive purpose but it is for the bifocal interest of justice – to the individual involved and the society affected.

¶40

8.After considering the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction , the apprehension expressed by the prosecution of the possibility of tampering with the evidence and the witnesses, the sensitive nature of the area and the prejudice that may befall on the prosecution if the petitioners are released and the larger interests of the public and the state, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail .

¶41

B.A.No.8843/2017 6

¶42

This petition is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge shall expedite the proceedings and take the matter to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JUDGE

¶44

ps/9/1/18

Ajesh@Appu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajesh@Appu 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

James @ John K John Vs State of Kerala

Nheru Ibrahim Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jayalal J Vs State of Kerala

Aloshious .L. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala