Kerala High Court · 2024

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI DENNY K DEVASSY. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

19.12.2023, THE COURT ON 10.01.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.NO.10704/2023 2 A. BADHARUDEEN, J. ================================ B.A No.10704 of 2023 ================================ Dated this the 10th day of January, 2024 O R D E R This is the second application for regular bail filed by the second accused in crime No.295/2014 of Agali police station, Palakkad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the entire documents, including detailed report and case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The prosecution case is that in between 22.00 hours on

08.06.2014 and 6.00 hours on 09.06.2014, dead body of an unknown male was found near Chemannur Sankara Cemetery, Agali. Thereafter, it has been revealed that accused Nos.1 to 3 forcefully took the above person, whose name, later, identified as 'Selvakumar', B.A.NO.10704/2023 3 from Coimbatore in a Bolero jeep bearing registration No.TN 20 AT 3033, owned by the first accused and the vehicle was driven by the fourth accused. The further allegation is that, while they were taking Selvakumar inside of the Bolero jeep, they have manhandled the above said Selvakumar, with intention to commit his murder, and after ensuring his death, he was dropped near the Cemetery. Even though crime was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. initially, thereafter, offence under Section 302 of IPC also was registered on

13.06.2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and final report already filed in this matter and therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. It is also submitted that the only material to connect the petitioner in this crime is the confession statement of the other accused. It is submitted further that he was formally arrested on 11.07.2017. But again, his arrest was recorded on 02.08.2022. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the petitioner has got B.A.NO.10704/2023 4 criminal antecedents, he deserves bail taking note of his custody from 02.08.2022.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner cannot be released on bail for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is pointed out that the petitioner is a person having criminal antecedents and he has involvement in seven crimes of serious nature starting from 2007 till 2021. The following are the crimes reported in relation to the petitioner.

1. Crime No.135/2007 of Budhalur police station u/s.366, 342, 120(b) of IPC.

2. Crime No.541/2017 of Thiruvembur police station un/s.387, 506(ii) of IPC.

3. Crime No.1047/2021 of Thiruverambur police station u/s.392 and 397 of IPC.

4. Crime No.1786/2021 of Namakkal police station u/s.379 of IPC.

5. Crime No.101/2019 of Airport police station u/s. 392 and 397 of IPC.

6. Crime No.413/2016 of Thiruvembur police station u/s.353, 506(i), 120(b) of IPC and Section 4 & 5 of Explosive Act

7. Crime No.253/2010 of Thiruvembur police station u/s.399 of B.A.NO.10704/2023 5 IPC.

7. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner could not be arrested in this crime during investigation though his formal arrest was recorded on 11.07.2017 since he was released from Tamil Nadu jail, ignoring the issuance of production warrant by the court concerned. Therefore, he was arrested by the police, after tedious effort, only on 02.08.2022. Therefore, if the petitioner would be released on bail, there is likelihood of flee from trial.

8. While considering B.A.No.1118 of 2023, the first bail application filed by the petitioner, this Court dismissed the same as per order dated 03.04.2023 by observing in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under: “9. I have gone through the pages of the detailed report and the case diary as such placed by the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain the truth of the allegations. It is discernible that on the death of the above said Selvakumar, crime was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, when the involvement of the accused, including the petitioner herein was revealed during the investigation, they got arrayed as accused and investigation B.A.NO.10704/2023 6 proceeded. Thereafter, final report also filed in time. It could be gathered that even though both sides submitted that his formal arrest was recorded on 11.07.2017, his presence for the purpose of investigation or committal could not be secured for a pretty long period and the police finally arrested him on 02.08.2022 and thereafter, case against the petitioner/second accused was split up and committed to the Sessions Court, Palakkad. It is also came to the notice of this Court that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are still absconding and therefore, their committal proceedings also not even completed and the committal proceedings against them are still pending before the Magistrate.

10. It is relevant to note that even though formally the petitioner was arrested, he was released from jail without granting bail in this crime. What are the events led to the said procedure is a matter of serious concern. Now it appears that even though the crime was of the year 2014, practically the petitioner herein was arrested on 02.08.2022, after a long period of 8 years. On perusal of the criminal antecedents hereinabove extracted, the same would go to show that the petitioner involved in very heinous crimes and this is the 8th crime committed by him. It is relevant to note that many of the crimes reported herein above are after commission of this crime. Therefore, the petitioner, if released on bail, there is likelihood of absconsion, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed.”

9. In the case at hand, the petitioner is a habitual offender B.A.NO.10704/2023 7 having involvement in 7 crimes prior to this occurrence. Further he absconded during the initial stage of investigation, who was booked by the investigating officer after tedious efforts, that too, after a period of about 8 years from the date of commission of crime. In such a case, grant of bail would help the petitioner to flee from trial and in view of the matter the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail and the trial could be completed keeping him in custody.

10. Therefore, this bail application must fail and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palakkad, to expedite the trial in this case, now pending as S.C.No.232/2023, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/