Allowed

Shihas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2023Bail Appl./174/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application for petitioners charged with murder conspiracy (though absent at the crime scene), the court allowed bail after 16 months custody, subject to conditions restricting movement and contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions restricting movement to Thrissur District and contact with prosecution witnesses.

Shihas Vs the State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.817/2021 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 TO 6:

¶8

1 SHIHAS, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, KRISHNAPURAM, PARAPPURAM, OLLUKKARA VILLAEE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 655.

¶9

2 NAVAS

¶10

AGED 43 YEARS

¶11

S/O.USMAN, KATTUPARAMBIL (H), KRISHNAPURAM, KALATHODE DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 655.

¶12

3 SAINUDEEN

¶13

AGED 47 YEARS

¶14

S/O.ABOOBAKACKER, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, KALATHODE, PARAPPURAM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 655.

¶15

BY ADV SUNNY MATHEW

¶16

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶17

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶19

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶20

MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 651.

¶21

ADDL.R3 RAHMATH

¶22

AGED 59 YEARS

¶23

W/O HANEEFA, RESIDING AT KARIPPAMKULAM HOUSE,

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

OLLUKKARA P.O, THIRUVENIKKAVU, THRISSUR-680655 ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/01/2022 IN CRL.MA.1/2022.

¶27

BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) REVATHY P. MANOHARAN S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019) SAJANA V.H

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

¶33

The petitioners are the accused Nos.4 to 6 in Crime No.817/2021 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 324, 326 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶34

The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- The petitioners hatched criminal conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the murder of the deceased Shameer on 16.10.2021. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 22.10.2021 at 03.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 travelled in the autorickshaw of the accused No.1 from Kalathode to Paravattani. When the deceased Shameer drove his mini truck from his home and reached in front of the Indian Bank, Paravattani, the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked him with deadly weapons and inflicted fatal injuries. Later on, he succumbed to the injuries .

¶35

I have heard Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned counsel for the victim (the mother of the deceased) who has been impleaded as addl. 3^rd

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

respondent and Sri.P.Narayanan,the learned Additional Public

¶39

Prosecutor.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that admittedly it was the accused Nos.1 to 3 who inflicted injuries on the deceased Shameer, which resulted in his death. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and therefore they are entitled to get bail. The petitioners are in custody for the last more than 16 months, submitted the counsel.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the victim strongly opposed the bail application. Both of them contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioners. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder and another [2021 SCC Online SC 633] the learned Prosecutor submitted that even though the petitioners were not physically present at the spot, they cannot be granted bail as it is evident that the deceased was murdered at the instance of the petitioners. He relied on the decision of

¶42

¶43

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶44

the Supreme Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] in support of his said submission.

¶45

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent (victim) submitted that the brother of the deceased still receives threat from the men of the petitioners and if they are released on bail, the life of the brother of the deceased itself would be in danger.

¶46

The petitioners were arrested on 26.10.2021 and since then they are in custody. The investigation is over and the final report has already been filed. True, it is a case of gruesome murder. The murder was executed in a pre-planned manner. However, even going by the prosecution case, the petitioners were not present at the place of incident. No overt act has been alleged against the petitioners. It was the accused Nos. 1 to 3 who assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon causing serious fatal injuries. The allegation against the petitioners is that they hatched conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 3 to do away with the deceased on account of the rivalry of the 4^th and 5^th accused with the deceased. It is true, certain materials have been collected by the prosecution to substantiate the theory of conspiracy. The statements of

¶47

¶48

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶49

CWs.17 and 18 who witnessed the petitioners and the accused Nos.1 to 3 conspiring to commit murder of the deceased were recorded. Electronic evidence such as CCTV footage of the place where the alleged conspiracy was taken place was also collected. The prosecution has also collected the CDR to show the telephone conversation between the petitioners and the accused Nos.1 to 3. However, these materials are to be substantiated at the time of trial to prove conspiracy. As stated already, the petitioners were not present in the place of the incident. The petitioners are in custody for the last 1 ½ years. They do not have any criminal antecedents. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioners is not necessary and they are entitled to bail. The apprehension put forward by the victim/3^rd respondent that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is threat to the life of the brother of the deceased can be taken care of by restraining the petitioners from entering into Thrissur District where the victim and the brother of the deceased resides.

¶50

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

¶51

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond

¶52

¶53

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶54

for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

¶55

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the SHO, Mannuthy between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Monday until further orders.

¶56

(iii) The petitioners shall not enter into the Thrissur District till the culmination of trial except for the purpose of compliance of the condition No.(ii).

¶57

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

¶58

(v) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶59

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶60

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion, modification of bail

¶61

BAIL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2022

¶62

¶63

conditions or for cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

¶64

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶65