Allowed

Libin Salas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2020Bail Appl./5481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder in a gang war context. Considering the applicant's age, lack of prior conviction, and the absence of prosecution evidence regarding the use of weapons, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or leave India.

Libin Salas Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 27TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.993/2019 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

LIBIN SALAS AGED 25 YEARS SON OF SALAS, VELIYA VEETIL, PUNNAPPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 688004

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

SRI SAJJU S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020 2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

The applicant herein is the accused No.14 in S.C.No.1 of 2020

¶19

on the file of the Court of Session, Alappuzha. He along with the rest of the accused face indictment under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 364, 118, 302 and 201 of the IPC.

¶20

The applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid

¶21

Crime on 23.9.2019 and he remains in custody. His earlier applications

¶22

were dismissed by this Court by Annexure-A1 to A3 orders.

¶23

As per the charge, the prosecution allegation is that the accused had previous enmity towards Manu @ Kakan Manu and they were looking out for an opportunity to do away with him. On 19.08.2019, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 with intent to murder the aforesaid Manu, wrongfully restrained him outside the Bonanza bar near Paravur junction and the 1st accused is alleged to have attacked him. Accused Nos.2 to 4 joined the 1st accused and inflicted grievous injuries on his body. After inflicting injuries as aforesaid, the aforesaid Manu was abducted by accused Nos.2 and 3 in

¶24

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020 3

¶25

a scooter and he was taken to the Galeelio beach which is situated on the western side of Paravur. Manu was pulled down from the scooter and he was taken to the beach. It is further alleged that the 1st accused then summoned accused Nos.7 to 14 over on his mobile phone and they reached the spot and Manu was brutally attacked leading to his death. It is further alleged that accused No.15 reached the spot thereafter and he is alleged to have given instructions to the rest of the accused to bury the body of the aforesaid Manu in the beach and burn his clothes and other personal items. Based on a complaint lodged by the father of Sri. Manu, Crime was registered on 21.08.2019 under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested on 22.08.2019 and the 5th accused was arrested on 24.08.2019. It appears that the 5th accused disclosed about the burial of the body of Manu and based on the said disclosure, the body was recovered from the beach. The prosecution also alleges that deceased Manu was a member of the Shapumukku group and the accused are the members of Galeelio group and these groups were engaged in a gang war.

¶26

Sri. Priyadarshan Thampi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant was not there in the first phase of the incident. He would further contend that the allegation against the

¶27

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020 4

¶28

applicant is that he joined the rest of the accused at the beach. The prosecution has no case that any weapon was used by the accused to inflict any injuries. It is further submitted that the accused No.15 has already been granted bail. According to the learned counsel, the principal accused are having criminal antecedents and it is due to the said fact that their applications were dismissed. In so far as the applicant herein is concerned, he is aged only 24 years and he is involved only in one crime. He has not been found guilty by a court of law as well. The learned counsel prays that the applicant be granted bail taking note of the long period of incarceration undergone by him.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader has seriously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that all the accused except accused No.15 are in judicial custody. According to the learned Government Pleader, the allegations are extremely grave and that the applicant herein also had a major role to play. He fairly submits that the prosecution has no case that the applicant had used any weapon or that he was a participant in the first phase of the crime.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. Admittedly, the applicant has been in custody for over a year. The prosecution has no case that the applicant had inflicted

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020 5

¶32

any injury with weapons. It is by now settled that the principles which should guide the Courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail or not are the probability of the accused appearing to take the trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. As held by the Apex Court in Dataram

¶33

Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (3) SCC 22] matters relating to bail are to be considered in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the severity of the allegations. The fact that the applicant has only one crime to his credit prior to the incident and that he has not been convicted cannot be lost sight of. Having regard to the period of detention undergone, the role assigned to the applicant, his age and antecedents, I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions to ensure the interest of the prosecution, he can now be released on bail.

¶34

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

1). The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶36

Bail Appl..No.5481 OF 2020 6

¶37

2). He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶38

3). He shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, the applicant shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and

¶40

pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Libin Salas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Libin Salas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Reji Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sherlinkumari R. Vs State of Kerala

Hashim a. Vs the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer

Shafeek, Vs Anu Divakar

Abdul Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Joyichen K Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies