Point of Law: Offence of Murder - Bail application dismissed - Once an application for bail is rejected by a speaking order, change in circumstance pleaded to maintain a subsequent application shall not be specious but real and genuine

ORDER :

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').

2. The petitioner is Accused No.11 in the case registered as Crime No.81/2019 of the Bekal police station which was re-registered as Crime No.75/CB/KNR & KSD/2019 of the Crime Branch. The investigation of the case was subsequently entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the case was again re-registered as Crime No.RC-3 (S)/2019/CBI(SCP).

3. The case relates to the murder of two young persons by name Kripesh and Sarath Lal, who were activists of Youth Congress, on 17.02.2019.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The first accused was the Branch Secretary and Member of the Area Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). There was personal as well as political enmity between the first accused and the deceased persons. On 05.01.2019, the deceased and some other persons had attacked the first accused and caused grievous hurt to him. The accused decided to give a befitting reply to it. On 14.02.2019, in between 15.40 and 17.40 hours, accused 1 to 9 and 11 hatched a criminal conspiracy at the bus waiting shed at the place called "Echiledukkam" in Peria Village and decided to murder Kripesh and Sarath Lal. Pursuant to such conspiracy, on 17.02.2019, as per the information obtained from the tenth accused that Kripesh and Sarath Lal were at the premises of the place Kallyot, accused 1 to 8, armed with deadly weapons like iron pipes and swords, reached the arecanut plantation on the side of the K.S.E.B Sub Station at Peria and they waited there by hiding. At about 19.36 hours, the tenth accused informed the sixth accused over mobile phone that Kripesh and Sarath Lal had proceeded towards their house on a motor cycle. Between 19.36 and 19.45 hours, when Kripesh and Sarath Lal reached the road there, Kripesh riding a motor cycle and Sarath Lal as the pillion rider, accused 1 to 8 jumped on to the road and attacked Kripesh and Sarath Lal with iron pipes and swords and caused them fatal injuries. Kripesh succumbed to the injuries at or about the same time and Sarath Lal succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is alleged that accused 1 to 11 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under Sections 118 and 120B of the I.P.C.

5. The first accused was arrested on 19.2.2019. Accused No.2 surrendered on 20.2.2019 and accused Nos.3 to 7 surrendered on 21.2.2019 and upon their surrender, they were arrested. Accused No.8 was arrested on 16.5.2019. Accused No.9 was arrested on 13.03.2019 and Accused No.10 on 16.03.2019. The petitioner (A11) was arrested on 29.04.2019.

6. After completing the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Malappuram filed final report against the accused on 20.05.2019 in the Magistrate's Court concerned. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session after complying with the necessary formalities.

7. Meanwhile, the parents of the deceased persons filed a writ petition as W.P(C) No.10265/2019 before this Court for issuing a direction to entrust the investigation of the case to the CBI. On 30.09.2019, a Single Bench of this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition and transferred the investigation of the case to the CBI and set aside the final report filed by the Crime Branch. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the CBI took over the investigation of the case and re-registered the case as Crime No. RC-3 (S)/2019/CBI(SCP).

8. The State filed appeal as W.A.No.2216/2019 challenging the judgment of the Single Bench in the writ petition W.P(C) No.10265/2019. As per the judgment dated 25.08.2020, the Division Bench partly allowed the writ appeal. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as follows:

“In the circumstances, consequent to the revival of the final report by setting aside the impugned