Kerala High Court
Manikandan vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2014
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014/18TH ASHADHA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 2454 of 2014
--------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 2181/2013 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
-------------------
PETITIONERS / ACCUSED A-14 & A- 15 :
---------------------------------------------------------
1. MANIKANDAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.VELUNNI, KATTIREMKADU HOUSE, KANNANNUR POST,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD.
2. SHAMALAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O. ARUMUGHAN, KATTIREMKADU HOUSE, KANNANNUR POST,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD.
BY.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV. SRI.K.ANAND
RESPONDENTS / STATE & COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.
BY SRI.T.ASAF ALI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July 2014
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 14 and 15 in Crime No.2181 of 2013 of the Palakkad Town Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.118, 120B and 302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The 2nd petitioner is Vice President of Kuzhalmannam Grama Panchayat. The 1st petitioner is elder brother of Sivadasan allegedly murdered by the deceased in Crime No.2181 of 2013 and others. It is submitted that the petitioners were arrayed as accused nos.14 and 15 only when the final report was filed against other accused before the jurisdictional magistrate on 21.02.2014. According to the learned Senior Advocate, there is no material to show that the petitioners are involved in any conspiracy. At any rate, case of Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014 2 conspiracy so far it concerns the petitioners is unbelievable.
3. Learned State Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that final report is filed only against the accused other than the petitioners. It is a split up final report. The case against the petitioners is still under investigation. According to the learned State Public Prosecutor, the petitioners were not available for arrest and could not be questioned. Learned State Public Prosecutor has also given me the CD file to convince me concerning (alleged) involvement of the petitioners in the conspiracy leading to the incident.
4. Learned counsel for wife of the deceased submitted that the petitioners are threatening wife and children of the deceased even now and that though, the Police did not take any action on a complaint, now the Kuzhalmannam Police have registered Crime No.175 of 2014 for the offences under Secs.294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC after the complaints preferred by wife of the Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014 3 deceased to the Chief Minister and other authorities were forwarded to the Police for action. According to the learned counsel, there is sufficient material to show that the petitioners are involved in the conspiracy leading to the murder of Prakasan, the deceased in Crime No.2181 of 2013.
5. Before going into the claim of the petitioners for pre arrest bail, I must notice the nature of allegations involved. Allegation is that on 18.11.2013, when Prakasan, an accused in Crime No.698 of 2013 of the Kuzhalmannam Police station (for alleged murder of Sivadasan) was being brought to the Court from the Sub Jail, Palakkad in Police escort while he was in Judicial Custody, he was assaulted with deadly weapons like tapping knife. He succumbed to the injuries.
6. Conspiracy part attributed to the petitioners is that while Prakasan was detained in the Sub Jail, Alathur, a conspiracy hatched up between the petitioners and other accused in the case to get Prakasan out of Alathur jail and accommodated in some other jail so that Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014 4 when he is taken to the Court, he could be assassinated. The conspirators allegedly felt that circumstances at Alathur was not congenial to execute the murder. For that purpose, a complaint as if in the name of an Action Counsel and purported to be signed by Haridas and Yusaf was given to various authorities alleging that Prakasan was being given undue facilities in the Sub Jail, Alathur. Pursuant to that complaint, Prakasan was shifted to the Sub Jail, Palakkad wherefrom, on the fateful day, he was taken to the Court and on the way, the alleged incident occurred.
7. True, learned senior advocate has an argument that the incident occurred in the premises of the Court and hence it was immaterial whether Prakasan was detained in the jails at Palakkad, Alathur or elsewhere in the State.
8. I notice from the statement of accused 7 and 8 (allegedly) recorded by the investigating officer that there is reference to the (alleged) involvement of the petitioners in the conspiracy which led to the filing of Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014 5 complaints to shift Prakasan from Sub Jail, Alathur. It is also true that even in that complaint, what is requested is that on account of undue facilities being provided to Prakasan in the Sub Jail, Alathur he be shifted to any other jail and there is no reference to shifting Prakasan to Palakkad jail in particular. But, the request in the complaint was to shift Prakasan to some other jail and, going by the statement of accused 7 and 8 to facilitate the murder as situation at Alathur was not congenial. I must also notice case of the prosecution that the investigating agency had questioned Haridas and Yusaf who disclaimed having signed any such complaint. It would appear that the complaints were prepared in the computer at Kuzhalmannam Panchayat office which was taken to custody and, the hard disc also appears to have been taken to custody.
9. The case against the petitioners is still under investigation. What is submitted is only a split up charge against other accused. The Police is entitled to investigate into the allegations against the petitioners. Bail Appl. No.2454 of 2014 6 Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and the investigation required to be done, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation may also be necessary. In that view, I am satisfied that grant of pre arrest bail would affect investigation of the case against the petitioners. Hence request for pre arrest bail cannot be allowed.
The application is dismissed.
It is directed that incase the
petitioners are arrested, they shall be
produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS P.A. To Judge