Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44410
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHIRCY V., J
ADITHYAN PRADEEP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./7556/2021
KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, K.L.SREEKALA, HARIDAS P.NAIR, M.A.VINOD, M.RAJESH KUMAR, ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
Bail may be granted if further detention is unnecessary, considering the completion of investigation and absence of prior criminal conduct.
Headnote:
Bail - Murder Case - IPC Sections [449, 302, 118] and Arms Act Sections [3, 25(1-B)(a)] - The court granted bail, emphasizing the lack of necessity for custodial trial and considering the age and lack of criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a murder case, was charged with aiding in procuring a gun for the first accused, who murdered the victim before committing suicide. The prosecution argued for the petitioner's continued detention due to his alleged complicity.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the severity of the charges and the nature of his alleged involvement in procuring a weapon for the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the gravity of the allegations alone does not warrant continued custody, especially with the completion of the investigation and the petitioner's lack of prior offences.
Final Decision: Bail granted with conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021 This application for regular bail has been filed by the 2nd accused in Crime No.1904 of 2021 of Kothamangalam police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 449 , 302,118 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 3 read with 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 read with 27(1), read with 29 (a) (b), Section 8 (2) read with 25 (1-B)(c) and Section
25 (8) of the Arms act .
2. The petitioner has been in custody since 6.9.2021.
3. A strange and shocking news spread in Kerala in the afternoon of 30.07.2021 that a young lady, a B.D.S student was shot dead at her place of residence by one young man who also committed suicide at the very same spot by a single shot injury to his head. He is arraigned as the first accused. The case was registered on the basis of the FI statement of the friend of the deceased who was also residing with her. There were complaints against the deceased/1st accused that he was causing disturbance to her quite often by following her. So her father approached the Assistant Commissioner, Kannur complaining about the annoyance and harassment caused by the deceased/1st accused. Both the parties were summoned by the police and strict warning was given to him not to disturb her, anymore.
4. Infuriated by the same, with the determination to cause her death he proceeded to Bihar along with this petitioner who is arraigned as the 2nd accused on 12.07.2021 to procure a gun. On 14.7.2021 they reached at Patna. There they resided in a hotel and then contacted the 4th accused and proceeded to Mungir a place at Bihar and procured a pistol from the 3rd accused who had absolutely no licence or authority to possess a gun or a pistol. From him the 1st accused with the assistance of this petitioner and the 4th accused purchased the pistol and pellets and thereafter he had illegally undergone a training to use the pistol and transported the same to Kerala. Thereafter the 1st accused proceeded to Kothamangalam where she was pursuing her studies. On the fateful day, he trespassed into her residential apartment while she was having her food with her friends, was dragged to the bedroom and in a fit of rage shoot her down. Immediately he too committed suicide by using the very same pistol. This is the case of the prosecution.
5. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that this petitioner was close friend of the 1st accused and so he was fully aware of his revenge towards the deceased lady. Still he travelled with the 1st accused to assist him to procure the pistol from Bihar and procured the same from the 3rd accused with the assistance of the 4th accused. So he was fully aware of the fact that the 1st accused was having the pistol and he was keeping the same without any licence in order to commit an offence. But he failed to inform the said fact to the authorities. If he had informed the intention of the 1st accused to the police authorities, this unfortunate, heinous and shocking murder could have been avoided. Thereby he has committed the aforesaid offences, is the argument highlighted by the prosecution.
6. The petitioner has pleaded total innocence and alleged false implication. He fully co-operated with the investigating agency and so further detention in judicial custody is not at all necessary, is the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. On the other hand the application for bail is strenuously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor mainly for the reason that this petitioner had travelled with the 1st accused and he was along with him throughout to procure the pistol from the 3rd accused with the assistance of the 4th accused, but he remained silent. He was fully aware of the enmity and vengeance of the 1st accused towards the victim. Though he was aware that the 1st petitioner was keeping the pistol as well the pellets with him illegally, he failed to inform the police and thus created the circumstances rather helped the 1st accu
