IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
K.C. Ramachandran S/o Kelappan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339, 403 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2024
BAIL APPLICATION - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - The court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, who was accused of possessing and transporting contraband, based on the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and lack of criminal antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in possession and transporting contraband and were arrested on 13.01.2024.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's further detention was unnecessary and allowed the bail application, considering the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and lack of criminal antecedents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the allegations of possessing and transporting contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and the lack of criminal antecedents, as well as the precedent that the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted if the accused has no criminal antecedents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Democracy thrives on the peaceful exchange of ideas, not the violent imposition of beliefs. Political violence is the poison that corrodes the roots of democratic principles.
--Amartya Sen
1. On the morning of 05.05.2012, the people of Kerala woke up to the grim news of a gruesome political murder. T.P. Chandrasekharan, the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘RMP’ for brevity), had been hacked to death the night before by a group of assassins. The wounds inflicted on him were so brutal and numerous that PW-136 Dr. Sujith Sreenivas, the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon at the Forensic Medicine department of the Kozhikode Medical College, who conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that it was indicative of the aggressive and hostile nature of the assailants. The question that loomed large, however, was, “Who would commit such a barbaric act and why?”
2. The prosecution would have us believe that the public opinion at the time was that it was the political rivalry between leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI (M) and the victim that led to the commission of the crime. T.P. Chandrasekharan, who was once an active member and local leader of the CPI (M), fell out with the party and formed a new party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). The RMP posed a big challenge to the election fortunes of the CPI (M) and this was evident when, in the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, the CPI (M) lost the Vadakara Constituency, which had been its stronghold till then. Although it was the Congress candidate who was returned from the Constituency that year, T.P. Chandrasekharan’s candidacy under the RMP banner was perceived as instrumental in the CPI (M)’s loss. The rivalry between the parties and the inter se attacks between members of the two parties only served to fuel the animosity of the CPI(M) leaders towards the victim.
The prosecution case:
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 8 to 14, with the assistance of accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 15 to 18, 20 to 25 and 27 to 30, at about 22.10 hours on 04.05.2012, accused Nos. 1 to 7 came in an Innova Car bearing a false registration number, driven by the accused no. 1, and rammed the car into the motorbike driven by T.P. Chandrasekharan. After causing the latter to be thrown onto the road, they hacked him to death on the public road at a place called Vallikkad by striking him with swords. Accused No. 3 also used a country bomb to cause an explosion that would prevent witnesses from approaching the scene of the crime. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 then fled the scene of the crime and were assisted by the other accused, who either harboured them or destroyed valuable evidence that pointed to them.
The investigation:
4. PW-4, the Sub-Inspector of Vatakara Police Station, suo motu, registered Ext.P2 FIR on the night of 04.05.2012 itself. The local police headed by the Dy. S.P. Vatakara, initially conducted the investigation of the crime that was numbered as Crime No. 433/2012 of the Vatakara Police Station. PW-154, the Circle Inspector, completed the inquest proceedings on the morning of 05.05.2012. PW-136, Dr. Sujith Sreenivas, conducted autopsy shortly thereafter. PW-163 Circle Inspector inspected the scene of the incident and prepared Ext.P20 scene mahazar. In the meanwhile, PW-165 Dy. SP Vatakara received information that an Innova Car bearing Registration No. KL-58D-8144 was found abandoned at Punathilmukku in Chokli, and he promptly reached there along with PW-1 Praseed and CW2 Ramachandran, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident. They identified the vehicle as the one used by the assailants, and after the forensic experts examined the vehicle, PW-165 seized the vehicle and the articles in it.
4.1. The investigation of the case was then transferred to the Crime Branch, where the case was re-registered as CBCID Crime No. 406/CR/
Ammini and Others vs. State of Kerala
Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others
Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Bed Raj vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 778
Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab
Damodar vs. State of Rajasthan
Esher Singh vs. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585
H.D. Sundara and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Hari Kishan and Another vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others
Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat
Inder Singh and Another vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Jai Prakash Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil and Others vs. State of Gujarat
Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Kanda Padayachi vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Machhi Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab
Manoj and Others vs. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353
Manoj Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala
Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others
Pakala Narayana Swami vs. King Emperor
Pakala Narayana Swami vs. King Emperor
R.K. Dalmia and Others vs. Delhi Administration
Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Raj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra
Rana Partap and Others vs. State of Haryana
Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Maharashtra
Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra
Shiv Govind vs. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 399
Shiva Kumar @ Shiva vs. State of Karnataka
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra
Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal
Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. V.V. Panduranga Rao
State of Karnataka vs. Bhaskar Kushali
State of Kerala vs. Saji @ Dada Saji and Others
State of Maharashtra vs. Ramesh Taurani
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Banne @ Baijnath and Others
State through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT vs. Nalini
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra
Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka
Tapinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra
The court considered the petitioner's entitlement to bail based on the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and lack of criminal antecedents.
The existence of a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and coordination in actions among co-conspirators, as established by the court's findings.
The court affirmed the conviction of several accused for conspiracy and murder based on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and forensic analysis, highlighting the significance of the burden of....
Authorities have a legal obligation to consider and dispose of applications for conversion of paddy land and wetlands within a reasonable time frame, as prescribed by the relevant rules and regulatio....
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
Membership in an unlawful assembly incurs liability for crimes committed in furtherance of a common object, regardless of specific overt acts attributed to each member.
Point of law : normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and ....
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.