The severity of the crime, the danger of accused absconding, and the likelihood of witness tampering are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.

COMMON ORDER

1. Applications for regular bail under S.439 of Cr.P.C.

Applicants in the aforesaid applications are accused Nos.6 and 7 respectively in Crime No.525/2020 of Thrissur Medical College Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Ss.120B,143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 506(ii), 307 and 302 r/w S.149 of I.P.C. and also under S.27 of the Arms Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:- On 05th of July 2020 at about 10:00 p.m. the applicants and seven others hatched a conspiracy at the house of the first accused, bearing House No.XII/434 of Varavur Grama Panchayat to murder Sijo, who was the 2nd accused in Crime 355/2019 of Peramangalam Police Station for committing the murder of Shyam and Christo, two associates of the accused, and invited the deceased Sijo to come for a compromise talk. And in consequence of the conspiracy, by about 11:00 P.M. on 5th of July 2020 travelling in two Maruthi Swift cars, they reached the place called ‘Manithara hump’ in Avannur where Sijo was asked to meet them, and lay in wait for him. By about 00.40 hours, on 6/07/2020 when the deceased accompanied by his four friends reached the place on two motorcycles, realising that Sijo was not alone, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of murdering Sijo, they knocked down motorcycles with the two cars in which the accused were waiting, and thereafter, got out of the cars committed riot armed with deadly weapons like swords and iron pipes and pounced upon the deceased Sijo with vengeance, and attacked him with those weapons and caused his death. The friends of the deceased, were also attempted to be murdered by knocking them down from the motorcycles, and thereafter, they were intimidated with the weapons that they wielded. Accused 9 and 10 guarded either sides of the road during the incident to ensure that the members of Sijo’s gang did not come to his assistance until their common object was accomplished. The deceased had allegedly sustained 48 ante mortem injuries on his body, and succumbed to it instantaneously. The crime was registered on getting information from two persons who noticed the injured person lying on the road in a pool of blood. The applicants were arrested on 11.07.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. They continue in remand.

3. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations against them are not true. It is submitted that they have been falsely implicated, and had nothing to do with the crime. A6 states that he has just one more case against him for offence punishable under S.324 I.P.C. CW2 cited by the prosecution as an eyewitness and injured had gone to the Medical College Hospital on 06/07/2020 for treatment of his injuries, and had narrated an alleged history of fall from the bike. Hence, the prosecution version of the deceased being accompanied by his friends and they having witnessed the occurrence is a make believe story contrived by the imagination of the investigating officer. Final report is already filed on completion of investigation, and hence, there is no purpose to detain the applicants.

4. Heard the learned counsels Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu for A6 and Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair for A7. The learned Sr.Public Prosecutor C.R.Suresh appeared for the State.

5. The learned counsel appearing for A6, Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu, has relied on a catena of decisions in support of his argument that the object of bail is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused for trial. And that bail is the rule whereas its refusal is an exception. It is also submitted that even though the offence alleged is grave and serious, and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused, these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The decisions relied upon by him are Dr.Shivinder Mohan Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020 SCC OnLine Del.766), Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P & Anr. (Crl.A.No.152/2020) and Suraj Kumar