Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Sanoop M.P on 21 August, 2012
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/30TH SRAVANA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 4856 of 2012 ()
-------------------------- ------------
CRIME NO.433/2012 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.
........
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.44 & 45
------------------------------------------------------
1. SANOOP M.P.
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS,PARAYULLATHIL HOUSE,
THATTOLIKKARA, POST CHOMBALA.
2. SHAJI E.M.,
S/O.NANU, AGED 42 YEARS, ILAMPALI MANAPATTIL HOUSE,
KALLAMALA, POST CHOMBALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
(CRIME NO.433/2012 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION-
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
S.I.T), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
BY SRI.C.K.SREEDHARAN, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY SRI.P.KUMARANKUTTY,ASSOCIATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13/08/2012, ALONG WITH BA. 5018/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21/08/2012 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.4856, 5018, 5143, 5303,
5312, 5362, 5364, 5488, 5510,
5543, 5548, 5644, 5688,
5756 & 5894 of 2012
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2012
O R D E R
The above bail applications have been filed by some of the accused in Crime No.433/12 of Vadakara Police Station. In one among the applications, B.A.No.4856/12, two accused persons have joined together, and the other petitions are separately filed by the respective accused person therein.
2. By the time these applications have been heard, after notice given to the Special Public Prosecutor, the investigating agency has filed the final report after completing the investigation. Rank number of the accused persons given at the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 2 ::
crime stage, which is shown in the petitions, has undergone change with the renumbering made in the final report laid before the court. Rank Number given to the respective petitioner in the final report will be adverted to and referred to later in this order, to avoid any confusion. However, reference to the accused in the order will be as ranked in the final report.
3. The above crime was registered over the murder of one Chandrasekharan, a leader of a political party, viz., Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) on the night of 04.05.2012 in a public road at a place called Vallikadu. The aforesaid Chandrasekharan was previously, a local leader of the Marxist Communist Party, and, because of difference of opinion, he was expelled/left that party. He later formed another political party, Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP), and, cadres and workers belonging to the Marxist Party in the area B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 3 ::
attracted by his influence joined the new party. Skirmishes and quarrels between the activists of the new party and Marxist Party in and around the locality, with assault on leaders and workers of the parties, one against the other inflamed and aggravated the tensions between the two parties, and, it is alleged, a criminal conspiracy was hatched by some leaders of the Marxist Party to do away with Chandrasekharan, and in execution of the conspiracy so hatched, it is alleged, he was murdered by his assassins hacking him to death with sharp edged swords. Investigation of the crime, it is alleged, has revealed that before the date of occurrence also, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched the assassins had roamed the places where Chandrasekharan carried his political activities, but were unsuccessful in getting an opportunity to finish him off. On the date of occurrence, with a spotter in a motor bike moving in front the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 4 ::
assassins of Chandrasekharan, now arrayed as accused 1 to 7 (A1 to A7) in an Innova car driven by the 1st accused (A1) roamed through various places to locate Chandrasekharan. Information being conveyed by the spotter that Chandrasekharan was passing through on a bike, his assassins travelling in the Innova car reached the spot. The 1st accused (A1) rammed the car into the bike throwing the rider Chandrasekharan to the road. Immediately, accused 2 to 7 (A2 to A7) got out of the vehicle, and one of them exploded country made bomb to scare away any onlooker from reaching the spot. The other accused attacked Chandrasekharan with sharp edged swords.
The victim suffered 51 slashes on vital parts of his body, face and head, and almost all such slashes with sharp edged weapons were made on his face causing total disfigurement, is the case of the prosecution. After accomplishing the task assigned, the assassins left the place in the same vehicle, and B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 5 ::
Chandrasekharan succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained. The investigation of the crime registered over his murder has disclosed the deep rooted conspiracy hatched by some leaders of the rival political party and the plan prepared meticulously even of collecting sim cards for the use of those engaged in the task to murder Chandrasekharan and later, after the occurrence for sheltering them. After completion of the investigation in the crime, the final report has been laid indicting the accused persons, numbering 76, for the offences publishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 120-B, 109, 118, 201, 212, 465, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code {for short "the IPC"} and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Ranking of the petitioners in the present petitions in the final report laid is as indicated hereunder:
B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 6 ::
================================================= Sl. Application Rank number Rank number at the in the final No. Crime stage report
------------------------------------
-------------
1. B.A.No.4856/12 A44 & 45 A22 & 23 (two accused together)
2. B.A.No.5018/12 A6 A8
3. B.A.No.5143/12 A56 A14
4. B.A.No.5303/12 A23 A13
5. B.A.No.5312/12 A38 A18
6. B.A.No.5362/12 A13 A12
7. B.A.No.5364/12 A11 A11
8. B.A.No.5488/12 A68 A26
9. B.A.No.5510/12 A7 A41
10. B.A.No.5543/12 A46 A16
11. B.A.No.5548/12 A47 A17
12. B.A.No.5644/12 A26 A1
13. B.A.No.5688/12 A1 A31
14. B.A.No.5756/12 A16 A10
15. B.A.No.5894/12 A14 A6 =================================================
5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran appearing for petitioners in some of the above petitions (B.A.Nos.4856/12, 5018/12, 5143/12, & 5756/12) pointing out that the accused persons have undergone substantial period of detention, B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 7 ::
submitted that now with the investigation over and final report laid, their continued detention is not justified. If that is permitted, then, it will amount to imposing of punishment on them without a fair trial, is the further submission of the counsel. Petitioners in B.A.Nos.5018/12, 5143/12 and 5756/12 (A8, A14 and A10) are local leaders of the Marxist Communist Party is pointed out by the counsel to contend that such leaders with party cadres and workers have been falsely implicated in the crime on account of political animosity, on flimsy grounds, without any legal evidence whatsoever. So far as the petitioners in B.A.Nos.5018/12, 5143/12 and 5756/12 (A8, A14 and A10) as they are responsible political leaders of the party, it is submitted by the learned counsel that no question of apprehension of their abscondence or evading from trial would arise for consideration. The imputations on which the above petitioners are proceeded are so flimsy and B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 8 ::
totally improbable is the further submission of the counsel. Petitioner in B.A.No.5143/12 (A4) is a District Committee Member of the Marxist Party, petitioner in B.A.No.5756/12 (A10) is one of the leaders of the party in the Calicut District and the petitioner in B.A.No.5018/12 (A8) is also a local leader of that party, is canvassed by the learned counsel to contend that their implication either as a conspirator in the crime or involved in one or other way in the perpetration of the crime, that too unsupported by any material which could be accepted as legal evidence, should not deprive them of an opportunity to defend the accusation after being enlarged on bail. In the case of the applicant (A10) in B.A.No.5756/12, bail has already been granted to A9 in the crime, against whom, it is submitted, the same set of allegations are imputed, is also canvassed by the learned counsel. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the observations made by the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 9 ::
Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI {2012 (1) SCC 40} to contend that deprivation of liberty must be considered as a punishment, and that ordinary rule is grant of bail and jail is an exception. Supporting the arguments canvassed by the above learned senior counsel, respective counsel appearing for the other petitioners also urged for enlarging them on bail. Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A.No.5303/12 (A13), contended that he has been implicated as a conspirator without any basis or material to support such an allegation. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in B.A.No.5488/12 (A26) submitting that he has been proceeded against on the allegation of harbouring of the offenders after commission of the crime contended that allegation imputed thereof cannot be accepted as true and correct at this stage, and as such the above petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Adverting to B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 10 ::
the complicity imputed against the other petitioners in the crime, alleged by the prosecution, respective learned counsel appearing for those petitioners also urged for their release on bail, contending that the allegations raised against the respective petitioner are baseless, and they have been falsely implicated in the crime on account of political animosity.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposing the applications for enlargement of the petitioners on bail adverted to the specific imputations levelled against them in the final report laid before the court. Placing a copy of the final report and also a list containing the number of crime cases registered against some of the petitioners/ accused persons for perusal, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 to A7 herein, who are involved in the occurrence, are professional assassins and hardened criminals.
B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 11 ::
Assassination of Chandrasekharan executed by them, striking him on the vital parts of his body, is clearly indicative of the brutality of the murder, submits the Special Public Prosecutor. If they are released on bail, witnesses connected with the crime will be very much apprehensive, especially in a case of this nature where allegations imputed are that a political murder pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched had been executed.
8. So far as accused persons A8 to A14, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, adverting to the imputations made against them in the final report, vehemently urged that the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to assassinate Chandrasekharan and the various steps taken by them at different stages till the murder of the victim was executed, are material circumstances which have to be taken into account to deny them bail. Their complicity in the commission of the murder of the victim and also B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 12 ::
culpability of the various offences imputed against them, are borne out by the materials gathered by the investigating agency, and it dis-entitles them from released on bail, according to the learned counsel. So far as accused Nos.16, 17, 18, 22 and 23, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that all of them have associated with the assassins in assisting them at different stages to accomplish the murder of the victim and the role played by them in the grievous crime committed would show that they too are not entitled to be released on bail. So far as accused Nos.26, 31 and 41, the other accused who have moved for bail, they either as leaders or activists of the Marxist Party, after knowing the commission of the crime have screened the accused persons and caused obliteration or destruction of the evidence of the crime, and culpable of such offences, is the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor, urging that they too are not entitled to be released on bail. B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 13 ::
9. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor has adverted to the imputations made against each of the aforesaid accused, who have moved for bail, with reference to the offences indicted against them in the final report, a meticulous scrutiny or consideration of the prosecution case with reference to the materials relied upon by prosecution is not to be proceeded in the consideration of these bail applications, but only reference to them to the extent necessary. So much so, I refrain from adverting to those aspects presented in detail, for disposal of these petitions.
Suffice to state that accused 1 to 7 were directly involved in the occurrence in hacking the victim to death, striking him with deadly sharp edged weapons and bleeding him to death, and a criminal conspiracy had been hatched by accused 8 to 14, to commit such murder, and it was later accomplished, and the other accused, who too have now moved the applications B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 14 ::
for bail, in one way or other assisted the execution of murder later in screening the accused or obliterating the evidence of crime, is the case of prosecution.
10. The offences indicted against the above petitioners/accused, specifically, in the final report are thus:
A1 and A6 along with A2, A3 and A5 to A7 are indicted of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B r/w 149, 201, 465 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. A8 is indicted of the offences under Sections 118, 109 of 302 120B and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. A10 to A14 along with A9 are indicted of the offences under Sections 118, 120B 109 of 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
A16 and A17 are indicted of the offences under Section 109 of 302 and 118 r/w Section 34 of IPC. B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 15 ::
A18 is indicted of the offences under Sections 118, 120B, 109 of 302, 465 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC. A26 is indicted of the offences under Sections 118 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC. A31 along with A32 and A34 to A38 are indicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. A41 along with A39, A40 and A42 to A76 are indicted of the offence punishable under Section 212 of IPC.
11. The Special Public Prosecutor has given a list of the crime cases registered against some of the accused persons in the case - against the first accused (A1) 4 crime cases, one of them for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC are pending investigation; against the 2nd accused (A2), 15 cases are pending investigation, one among them for murder and some others for attempt to murder as well; against the 3rd accused (A3), 36 crime cases have been registered, two of them for murder and some others for grave offences; against the 4th B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 16 ::
accused (A4), 5 crimes cases are pending investigation, two of them for murder; against the 5th accused (A5), 3 crime cases are pending investigation, with one of them for the offence of kidnapping for ransom; against the 6th accused (A6) another crime is pending for the offence of murder; and, against the 7th accused (A7), 5 crime cases are pending with one of them for the offence of murder. A perusal of the list of the crime cases registered against the aforesaid accused, accused 1 to 7 (A1 to A7) would indicate in the case of some of them (A2, A3, A4 & A7) such crimes have been registered over a period of time from 2000 onwards, and in the case of other accused persons, (A1, A5 & A6), the crime records start from 2009 or 2010. The aforesaid accused persons A1 to A7 are professional assassins ready to accomplish any heinous murder at the beck and call of their political party and as such they have been engaged to vanquish the victim, is the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 17 ::
case of the prosecution. Release of the aforesaid accused persons (A1 to A7) on bail and allowing them to roam about freely will instill fear and shock to the witnesses connected with the crime, and further there will be threat to the safety of the witnesses which has been canvassed by the Special Public Prosecutor, to oppose their applications. Circumstances under which the victim was vanquished, no doubt, have also to be taken note of with reference to the criminal antecedents imputed against the aforesaid accused in considering their bail applications.
12. As against some other accused also, who too have moved bail applications, it is seen, some crime cases have been registered and they are pending investigation. A8 is stated to be involved in one crime, A11 in 4 crimes and A12 in one crime.
Whereas the crime registered against A8 is for the offence of attempt to commit murder, one of the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 18 ::
crimes proceeded against A11 is for murder in which A12 is also stated to be a co-accused. Accused 8 to 14 (A8 to A14) were involved in the conspiracy to commit the murder of Chandrasekharan and it is pursuant to the agreement hatched by them the victim was vanquished, according to the prosecution. One among such conspirators (A9) has already been enlarged on bail by orders of this court, is canvassed as a circumstance apart from the submissions made that some of the above accused are leaders of the political party and they have been falsely implicated in the crime. So far as A16, A17, A18, A22 and A23, the allegations are such that they have associated with the assassins A1 to A7 and some of them even travelled with them on previous occasions to accomplish the murder of victim, arranged sim cards, assisted in procuring vehicles, facilitated meetings with the conspirators etc., the details of which as such need not be narrated, to B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 19 ::
impute them with the grave offence of murder with other offences. Similarly A26, A31 and A41, the other accused persons who have moved the application for bail have either screened some of the accused persons or obliterated the evidence connected with the crime, is the basis for indicting them of the offences thereunder. Now that the final report has been filed after completion of the investigation, I find, the accused persons A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 can be released on bail, subject to conditions as may be called for.
13. Now, in considering the applications of accused persons A1, A6, A8, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14, the guiding principles applicable for grant/refusal of bail have to be taken into account. Though an accused person is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty, the gravity of the offence imputed against him, the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, the brutality B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 20 ::
in the crime committed, and the imputation with respect to the role played by the accused persons, all these factors necessarily have to be taken into account in adjudging the merit of the application for bail. Liberty of a citizen, no doubt, must be zealously safeguarded; however, not at the peril of the society. Liberty is to be secured through the process of law, and the interest of the accused persons, necessarily, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, having regard to the collective interest of the community also. The Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI through its Director {2007(1) SCC 70} has considered the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution with respect to the entitlement of an accused persons for bail. In the aforesaid decision, it has been stated thus:
"While it is true that Art. 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 21 ::
right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee {AIR 2011 SC 274}, the Supreme Court has laid down the general principles to be followed while considering an application for bail thus:
".... the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 22 ::
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
In a later decision Sanjay Chandra v. CBI {2012 (1) SCC 40} referred to earlier, the Supreme Court has pointed out that there is a punitive content in pre-trial detention, and the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The discretionary jurisdiction of criminal courts to grant bail pending trial, it has been cautioned, has to be exercised with great care and caution balancing the liberty of individual and the society in general. It has been further stated that the general principle is that "bail is the rule and jail an exception."
14. The broad principles applicable in the grant of bail being considered and taken note with reference to the facts and circumstances presented in the case, so far as A1 and A6 who are alleged to be directly involved in the occurrence and against whom, there is strong room to suspect their B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 23 ::
complicity in the offences imputed, I find, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
15. With respect to the complicity and involvement of A8, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14 in the murder of Chandrasekharan, alleging that they are co-conspirators in committing of such crime, it is imputed that such conspiracy was hatched by A8, A9, A10 and A14 at a flower shop and the task to assassinate Chandrasekharan was entrusted to A8, who, then, contacted A10 and A11, and, pursuant thereto, another meeting of A1, A3, A8, A11 and A12 followed at a different place, and, later, A8 and A11 went over to the house of A13, who, after ascertaining from A14, using the mobile phone of A8, the decision taken to finish off Chandrasekharan, a scheme thereof was formulated and, later, given effect to. Motive for the assassination of Chandrasekharan, as already indicated, is political animosity harboured by the leaders of Marxist party B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 24 ::
since he had formed a new party and, further, after formation of such party, there were several clashes between the members and workers of the two parties and one of them was an assault on A14, a District Committee member of the Marxist party. Chandrasekharan who contested the election as a candidate in the last general election to the parliament also caused the defeat of the candidate put up by the Marxist party in Vadakara parliamentary constituency is imputed as yet another reason for his murder pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the aforesaid accused persons. It is also alleged that A8 in two instalments gave A1 a sum of Rs.50,000/-, initially a sum of Rs.10,000/- and, later, a sum of Rs.40,000/-, to implement the scheme prepared to murder Chandrasekharan. In public meetings, A8, A9 and A14 have openly declared that B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 25 ::
Chandrasekharan would be finished off, is the further allegation of the prosecution.
16. So far as A8, A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14, at the crime stage, one among the conspirators, A9, has been granted bail cannot be a guiding factor, in deciding their applications for bail without reference to the indictment levelled against them in the final report. A14, a District Committee Member of the Marxist Party, and A8 and A13, two other local leaders had played active role in the conspiracy hatched to commit the murder of the victim and pursuant to the design hatched by them at different stages, the murder of the victim was accomplished engaging the professional assassins, and even at different stages they were directly involved in perpetrating the grievous crime, is the case of the prosecution. So far as the allegation of criminal conspiracy imputed against the aforesaid accused in hatching a design to commit the murder of the B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 26 ::
victim, it has been argued before me by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A8, A10 and A14 that other than raising an allegation that at a flower shop A14 and some of the accused had a meeting and when they were leaving some utterance was made by A14 to others to deal with the victim, the materials produced by the prosecution are totally insufficient to rope them as in any way connected with the crime. After taking note of the circumstances placed by the prosecution to impute criminal conspiracy against these accused persons, at this stage, I find, it is not at all possible to hold that the imputations made against them are not sufficient to indict them of the offences levelled. So far as criminal conspiracy is concerned, it is not possible to give affirmative evidence about the date, or the persons who took part in the formation of such conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 27 ::
the conspiracy and about the matter in which the object of the conspiracy was to be carried out. All those are necessarily matters of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by both. No direct evidence of express proof of agreement is necessary, but it need be only shown from the act and conduct of the parties that there was such an agreement by them, which, no doubt, is a matter of inference. In Mohamad Usman Mohammad Hussaim Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra {AIR 1981 SC 1062}, the Supreme Court has held to establish the offence of criminal conspiracy the prosecution need not prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act. Such an agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Circumstances presented in the case give strong room to suspect the complicity of A8, B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 28 ::
A13 and A14, in the criminal conspiracy imputed, and also having regard to the alleged role played by A13 in giving effect to the conspiracy hatched, after confirming it with A14 to proceed with further steps to vanquish the victim, I find that the aforesaid accused persons (A8, A13 and A14) are not entitled to bail.
17. A10, A11 and A12, who are imputed as co- conspirators, at this stage, on the filing of the final report, can be released on bail, subject to conditions:
In the result, the applications for bail moved by A1, A6, A8, A13 and A14 (B.A.Nos.5644/12, 5894/12, 5018/12, 5303/12 and 5143/12) are dismissed.
The applications of other accused persons- A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 (B.A.Nos.5756/12, 5364/12, 5362/12, 554312, 5548/12, 5312/12, 4856/12, 5488/12, 5688/12 B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 29 ::
and 5510/12) are allowed ordering their enlargement on bail on the following conditions:
(1) The accused persons A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 shall execute bond for Rs.1 lakh each (Rupees One Lakh only} with two solvent sureties for the like sum, by each of them, to the satisfaction of the magistrate.
(2) The above accused persons - A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 -
shall produce their passports, if any, before the magistrate, and if any of them is not in possession of passport, he shall file an affidavit affirming so.
(3) The above accused persons - A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 - shall not intimidate, terrorize or influence, or make any attempt thereto, any of the witnesses connected with the crime so as to dissuade them from speaking the truth before the police or the court, as the case may be. B.A.No.4856/12 & con cases :: 30 ::
(4) The above accused persons - A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A22, A23, A26, A31 and A41 -
shall not enter the limits of Kozhikode District, except for the purpose of appearance before the court in connection with the present case, or any other pending case or on demand for their appearance by the investigating agency, for a period of three months, from the date of their release on bail.
(5) The above accused persons shall furnish particulars of their abode/residence to the investigating agency within a period of one week, and if there is any change, it shall be promptly informed without delay. (6) The above accused persons shall not leave the State, without the permission of the court.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/-
//true copy//