Kerala High Court
Karuvangadn Mukthar @ Muthu vs The Station House Officer on 4 December, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7015 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 99/2013 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS
COURT - III, MANJERI (CRIME NO.240/2012 OF ARECODE POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1,4,7,8:
1 KARUVANGADN MUKTHAR @ MUTHU,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.UMMER, AREACODE AMSOM, CHEMBRAKATTUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
2 CHOLAYIL UMMAR,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM KUTTY,THAZHATHATYIL KUNNATHU HOUSE,
THAZHEKUNIYIL KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 FADALU RAHMAN,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA, ERUMAMKUNNATH HOUSE, KUNIYIL, ANWAR NAGAR,
KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 MUHAMMED FATHEEN,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RASAK, KEEZHATHETHODI HOUSE, KUNIYIL,
KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
SRI.C.K.SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
AREECODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676505.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NARCOTIC CELL, MALAPPURAM-676505.
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 2
3 STATE OF KERALA,
(REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA)-682031.
BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
ADGP SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018, ALONG
WITH Crl.MC.6991/2018, THE COURT ON THE 4/12/2018 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6991 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1963/2018 & 2046/2018 of ADDL.
D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI
PETITIONER/accused nos. 1,4,7,8:
1 KARUVANGADAN MUKTHAR @MUTHU,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. UMMER, AREACODE AMSOM, CHEMBRAKATTUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
2 CHOLAYIL UMMAR,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, THAZHATHATYIL KEEZHUPARAMABA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 FADALU RAHMAN.
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, ERUMAMKUNNATH HOUSE, KUNIYIL, ANWAR
NAGAR, KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 MUHAMMED FATHEEN,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RASAK, KEEZHATHETHODI HOUSE, KUNIYIL,
KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AREECODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 4
2 THE DEPUT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NARCOTIC CELL, MALAPPURAM.
3 STATE OF KERALA
(REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA)
BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7015/2018, THE COURT ON 4/12/2018 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 5
O R D E R
[ Bail Appl. 7015/2018 ,Crl.MC.6991/2018 ] Petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos.1,4,7 and 8 and they along with the co-accused, face prosecution for offences punishable under sections 143,147,148,120B and 302 read with section 149 IPC in Crime No. 240/2012 of Arecode police station. The allegation was that the accused, due to previous enmity towards the deceased persons , conspired to commit murder of the above two persons, formed into an unlawful assembly on 10/6/2012 at about 7.30.p.m., committed rioting and hacked to death the two persons with choppers. After crime was registered, investigation was conducted and accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, final report was laid. Bail was granted to the petitioners on 12/9/2012 subject to the condition that they shall not in any manner try to influence or coerce the victim or witnesses. The matter is now pending as SC No. 99/2013 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri.
2. Annexure A1 application was filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail granted to accused Nos. 4 and 8 on an allegation that they intimidated CW14 and his cousin on 29/5/2018. CW 14 is the son of the one of the deceased. It was alleged that they threatened witnesses against deposing in favour of the prosecution. Pursuant to the complaint Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 6 laid, Crime No. 222/2018 was registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 506 read with section 734 IPC. Thereafter, Annexure A2 application was filed by the prosecution for cancelation of bail granted to accused Nos. 1,4 and 7. It was alleged that accused, 1 4 and 7 had approached CW78, who was witness to the mahazar for the recovery of weapon concealed by the accused and offered him huge amount for not deposing in favour of the prosecution.
3. The respondents who are the present petitioners filed detailed objections. It was contended that the allegation was absolutely false. It was contended that 66 witnesses had been examined till then, out of which 45 had turned hostile. Out of the witnesses who turned hostile, 2 witnesses were relatives of the deceased. 14 were neighbours of the deceased. None of the above witnesses who turned hostile has a case that they were coerced, threatened or intimidated by the accused. It was contended that there was no truth in the allegations raised against them. None of the accused had threatened any of the witnesses, it was contended.
4. The court below, by the impugned order held that there were sufficient materials to hold that the petitioners had interfered in the process of trial. The court below relied on the report of the investigation officer and the report of the Intelligence Bureau which formed the basis of police report. By the impugned order, the bail granted to the petitioners were cancelled and they were ordered to be Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 7 kept in custody. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioners have preferred this bail application.
5. Petitioners have preferred Crl.M.C.No. 6991/2018 and BA N. 7015/2018 seeking bail. Heard both the matters together.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that trial had substantially completed and all the crucial witnesses were examined. Petitioners were required to be kept under custody after cancellation of bail, only to satisfy the personal ego of the defacto complainant and the other family members of the deceased. It was also contended that undue interest was being taken by the special prosecutor who had his own vested interest. Learned counsel submitted that, the court below went wrong in relying on the police report and should have been more circumspect in canceling the bail.
7. It is admitted fact that, the bail was granted subject to the stringent conditions. Such conditions were imposed by the court below taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the present murder is sequel to an earlier murder and as a retaliation. It was also found by the court that, petitioners and the deceased were persons belonging to higher strata of the society and were wealthy. According to the court below, all methods were adopted to win over the witnesses. The order of the court below shows that, the findings of the court was based on a report of the SI of Areacode police station. It was stated in the report that the accused had threatened the Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 8 witnesses to resile from their version to the police. It was also stated by the investigating agency that police apprehended serious law and order issues and repetition of crime since the present crime was a retaliation of the earlier crime. It was also noted by the court below that the police report was based on Intelligence bureau report submitted to the District Police Chief.
8. The court below while allowing the petition, considered the fact that there was an earlier occasion when CW1, who was facing trial, had complained before the court from the box, that when he was about to identify the accused No. 8, the 4th accused had shown gestures from the box threatening the witness against identifying the accused. The court had issued show cause notice to the 4th accused and obtained explanation from him. Further proceedings against him was closed after the defence counsel had warned and reprimanded the accused for committing such acts and warning them against repetition of the above act.
9. Confidential report of the Intelligence Bureau was placed before this court in a sealed cover. It substantiated the allegation raised by the prosecution. Definite allegation, that attempts were made to threaten or intimidate the witnesses, are available. It was pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that even though investigation has substantially progressed, the present schedule of examination is likely to be completed in the first week of December. Even though most of the Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 9 crucial witnesses were examined, some witnesses relate to the recovery of weapons and though they are known as mahazar witness, still their evidence is very crucial. It was contended that, if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage there is likelihood of the petitioners threatening or coercing the witnesses.
10. The order passed by the court below is well substantiated and a well considered order. Conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence. Having considered these facts, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A4 order and to grant relief sought in Crl, M.C. 6119/2018. Since the trial is not completed at least in relation to the important witnesses, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners herein as BA No. 7015/2018.
11. However, apprehension of the prosecution is in relation to the interference in the examination of crucial witnesses. Prosecution has no case that petitioners are likely to abscond. Having considered the above fact, I am inclined to direct the learned Sessions Judge to consider the bail application, if any, filed immediately after completion of the examination of the witnesses scheduled now. Hence, the court below may consider the bail application in the light of the witnesses already examined and also after considering whether the any crucial witness is to be examined. The court below shall pass appropriate orders thereafter in accordance with law, since the valuable right of the accused is also curtailed in the light of the alleged threat and Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 10 interference in the trial.
Crl.M.C.is disposed of as above. Bail application is closed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 11
APPENDIX (Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018)
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE PETITION TO CANCEL THE
BAIL WITH RESPECT TO ACCUSED NO.4 & 7
BY THE PROSECUTOR.
ANNEXURE -A2 COPY OF THE PETITON TO CANCEL THE BAIL
WITH RESPEPCT TO ACCUSED NO. 1 BY
PROSECUTORS.
ANNEXURE -A3 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE-A4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/10/2018
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JDUGE III, MANJERI IN CMP
NO.1963/2018 AND CMP NO.2046/2018.
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 12
Crl.M.C.No.6991/2018 & BA No.7015/2018 13