In a bail application by the 5th accused in a murder case, the court noted the gravity of the offence, conspiracy involved, and witness apprehensions despite the filing of the charge sheet, rejecting the plea for release.
Bail application dismissed; applicant remains in police custody pending trial.
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
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 1398 of 2019
CRIME NO.413/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
MEJO JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNATHAN HOUSE, KOMBARA DESOM, VELOOKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A:1398 OF 2019
2
ORDER
The applicant herein is the 5th accused in S.C. No.754 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda. In the aforesaid case, he along with the rest of the accused are arraigned for having committed offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 450 and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.
B.A:1398 OF 2019
3
intervened to save the deceased. They were also brutally attacked. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 5 are the persons, who trespassed into the house and had inflicted injuries, and accused Nos.6 to 11 and 14 are the persons, who had actively aided accused Nos.1 to 5 and stood guard outside the house, to facilitate the commission of the crime by the principal accused.
B.A:1398 OF 2019
4
applicant is unwarranted.
B.A:1398 OF 2019
5
apprehension of the prosecution that if released, the accused would terrorise the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. In the case on hand, the murder was committed by a group of persons pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by them. The deceased is an aged man who happened to be the father of an adversary of the applicant and others. The prime witness is the wife of the deceased and she had also suffered multiple fractures on both her hands. The son of the deceased also had occasion to witness a part of the incident. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the applicant would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be ignored. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage particularly when the case has been scheduled for trial. Being in custody for an extended period is not a ground for release on bail, particularly in cases which involve grave offences (see Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [(2012) 9 SCC 446].
B.A:1398 OF 2019
6
expression of opinion for the purpose of deciding this bail application shall not be regarded as an expression on merits of the case.
This application will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
KRJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the 5th accused in a murder case involving conspiracy and group offence pending trial.
Whether the apprehension of tampering with evidence justifies denial of bail despite previous bail applications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶22
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 3 SCC 22] · Who else cites this
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBIExplained¶28
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] · Who else cites this
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj SinghExplained¶28
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [(2012) 9 SCC 446] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mejo Joseph
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
