Kerala High Court
C.K.Ramachandran vs State on 6 May, 2011
Author: V.Ramkumar
Bench: V.Ramkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3255 of 2011()
1. C.K.RAMACHANDRAN,(THEN DEPUTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE,REP.BY STANDING COUNSEL,CENTRAL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/05/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Bail.......................................
Application Nos. 3255, 3341
& 3366 of 2011
........................................
Dated: 6th day of May, 2011
ORDER
In these applications filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1, 2 , 9 & 14 seek their enlargement on bail.
2. All the petitioners were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("C.B.I." for short) on 24-03-2011. The petitioners are police officers of different rank and, among others, are accused in the custodial murder of one Sampath in the night of 29-03-2010. The case was originally registered as Crime No. 251 of 2010 of Palakkad Town North Police Station. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was handed over to the Crime Branch Police which re- registered the case as Crime No. 259/CR/HHW-II/CBCID, Ernakulam. Consequent on this Court entrusting the investigation with the C.B.I., the case was again re-registered as R.C. No. 034 - 2010 - S 0008 /CBI/TVPM. Altogether there Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:2:- are 32 accused persons. The offences involved are those punishable under Sections 120 B, 302, 218, 201, 465, 471 and 348 I.P.C.
3. I heard Adv. Sri. S. Rajeev appearing for the petitioner (A14) in B.A. 3255 of 2011, Advocate Sri. B. Raman Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A1) in B.A. 3341 of 2011 and Sr. Advocate Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the petitioners (A2 & A9) in B.A. 3366 of 2011. I also heard Sri. Chandrasekhara Pillai, the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. who opposed the applications. I also perused the case diary files.
ARGUMENTS OF THE ACCUSED
3. (A) Advocate Sri. S. Rajeev made the following submissions before me on behalf of A14:-
Deceased Sampath was the prime accused in the gruesome murder of Sheela on 23-03-2010 culminating in the Palakkad Town North Police registering Crime No. 246 of 2010. Even if the entire allegations against A14 are accepted as true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:3:- I.P.C. are not made out against A14. At best, what is made out is only an offence punishable under Sec. 201 I.P.C. which is bailable. The petitioner is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakkad (now under suspension) and has been in custody for more than one month . During his past service he has earned 38 good service entries besides other encomiums in service. He has investigated innumerable sensational cases. Taking into account his achievement he stands recommended for the President's Medal in the year 2009. His police custody was already obtained and the investigation of the case with respect to the involvement of A14 is also over. He is co-operating with the investigation.
His further detention is not required . It is puerile for the C.B.I. to contend that A14 , if released, will influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.
B. Advocate Sri. B. Raman Pillai appearing for A1 made the following submissions before me:-
After tying both the hands of Sheela of Puthur in Palakkad, the front portion of her neck was split by Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:4:- none other than deceased Sampath. Sampath was allegedly killed while in police custody during the investigation of Crime No. 246 of 2010 (Sheela Murder Case) of Town North Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioner and 13 other police officers were arrayed as accused by the Crime Branch Police alleging that they were responsible for the brutal murder of Sampath while in police custody. The petitioner was always available at his residence and in his locality both before and after he was suspended from service. He was attending as a witness in various courts in Palakkad district pursuant to summons received by him from the respective courts. Even the C.B.I. did not summon the petitioner or ask him to appear before them at any point of time. It was all on a sudden during the wee hours of 24-3-2011 that a group of C.B.I. officials barged into his residence and took him into custody after waking him up . The petitioner had no role at all in the investigation of Sheela murder case. He was not even a witness for the prosecution. The allegation that the petitioner also had physically Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:5:- tortured Sampath from a river side cottage at Malampuzha is a false allegation. The petitioner had not taken into custody Sampath or any of his co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody for 34 days. There is no case for the C.B.I. that the petitioner is influencing the investigation.
(C) Sri.K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for A2 and A9 made the following submissions before me:-
A2 and A9 were only obeying the orders of their superiors. No overt acts have been attributed to A2 and A9 in the gruesome murder of Sampath. They had nothing to do with the said incident except that they were serving police officials in the Town South and Town North Police Station at the relevant time. They have been questioned after their arrest. They have been in custody for more than one month. Investigation of the case has been carried on for the past one year. The petitioners could influence the witnesses if they really wanted to do so. But the C.B.I. has no case that A2 and A9 had influenced Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:6:- the prosecution witnesses. A2 and A9 are not responsible for the C.B.I. not arresting some of the accused persons.
JUDICIAL EVALUATION
4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners herein are police officers of different rank and they along with the other accused persons are alleged to have tortured 26 year old Sampath to death on 28-03-2010 and 29-03-2010. Third degree methods of the most inhuman nature are said to have been practiced on the hapless detenue evidently to extract a confession or to silence him forever, presumably to prevent Sampath from revealing vital information which certain vested interests did not want him to divulge. After a man-hunt for Sampath, he was taken into custody in the night of 28-03-2010 from a place near Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu and brought to Palakkad in Kerala. Sampath was then sequestered and kept under illegal detention in a riverside cottage at Malampuzha without producing him before a Magistrate and without complying with any of the formalities of arrest as enjoined by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. - (1997) 1 SCC 416. Sampath was Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:7:- brutally tortured by various means which were most foul and inhuman. He had 63 injuries on various parts of his body. Sampath succumbed to the ferocious savagery unleashed by the bloodthirsty policemen. He breathed his last around the midnight of 29-03-2010. The tell-tale pages of the case diary reveal that beastly animals in human form and clad in kakki are among our police personnel whose prime duty is not to indulge in manslaughter but to protect the lives and limbs of those who are in distress. The role played by the petitioners, among others, in the "operation torture" of Sampath was unequivocally admitted before this Court even by the Crime Branch Police in the Writ Petition filed by the brother of Sampath seeking investigation by the C.B.I. The case diary reveals that after brutally torturing Sampath to death steps were hurriedly taken to manipulate records such as the General Diary, Sentry Relief Book , Prisoners Search Register etc. at the behest of the police superiors to make it appear that Sampath was directly brought to the North Police Station only in the night of 29-3-2010 and that while in custody he developed chest pain and died on the way to the hospital. A1 and A2 had vital role in breaking the ribs of Sampath. A9 also had brutally tortured the detenue. Apart Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:8:- from engineering the operations, A14 had directed the destruction and manipulation of records besides baiting two private persons to support the police version by promising them high monitory rewards.
5. Policemen either directly or indirectly indulging in the barbarous atrocity of torturing detenues in their custody has been condemned in very strong language by the Supreme Court. (See State of M.P. v. Shyam Sunder Trivedi - (1995) 4 SCC 262; Sahadevan v. State - (2003) 1 SCC 534; Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. - (2005) 9 SCC 631 and Haricharan and Others v. State of M.P. (2011) 4 SCC 159.
6. Past "good service" entry or recommendation for the President's Medal cannot exonerate a police officer if, despite the glorious past, he has involved himself in heinous crimes. Less said the better, about the criteria actually applied in the matter of police medals. Courts in this country are familiar with allegations that really meritorious officers have been overlooked after foisting false cases against them and officers with dubious antecedents and criminal proclivities have been recommended after dishonestly stifling their dirty past. The political interferences and intra- departmental maneuverings behind the recommendations for Bail Application Nos. 3255, 3341 & 3366 of 2011 -:9:- police medals cannot escape judicial scrutiny for all times to come.
7. Whether it was due to abscondence on the part of the petitioners or the protective gesture on the part of the State Police bound by the ties of brotherhood (as observed in Shyamsunder Trivedi's Case (supra) the fact remains that none of the accused police officers (numbering more than two dozens) was arrested until the C.B.I. made the start in that direction towards the end of March, 2011.
Going by the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ravindra Pal Singh v. Ajit Singh - (2011) 4 SCC 238 the petitioners do not deserve bail. Investigation of the case is still under progress.
These applications are, accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
ani/