Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30728
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
ABOOBACKER @ MANGA ABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8150/2020
T.A SHAJI(SR) and SRI.ATHUL SHAJI, U.KABEER
Bail may be denied in serious offenses even without direct involvement, particularly when ongoing investigations may unveil further evidence of complicity.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - Cr.P.C. Section 439 - IPC Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 307, 212, 201, and Arms Act Sections 3 and 25(1)(B)(a) - Court emphasized that the investigation is ongoing, the gravity of the accusations justifies continued detention, and no new evidence warrants bail.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants sought bail in a case related to a violent attack where they were accused of organizing the assault, although their direct involvement was not established. Earlier bail was denied due to insufficient material against them at that time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence to establish the applicants' complicity; however, the severity of the crimes alleged, and ongoing investigation warranted the denial of bail, as releasing them could undermine the investigation into conspiracy.
Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the severity of the charges and the status of the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without substantial evidence indicating the applicants' direct involvement, but acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations and the risk of compromising the investigation, bail was not justified.
Final Decision: The bail application is dismissed.
O R D E R
Dated this the 8th day of December 2020 Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC.
2. The applicants are accused 8 and 9 in Crime No.1849/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 143, 147, 148,294 (b), 506 (ii), 307, 212 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 (1)(B)(a) and Section 7 read with Sections 27(2) and 27 of Arms Act .
3. This is a successive bail application filed by the applicants. The earlier application for bail filed as BA No.7791/2020 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2020 for the reason that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and the applicants are supposed to be the conspirators of the offence, though they were not involved in the overt act of aggression by the first accused who shot the de facto complainant with a pistol and accused Nos.2 to 7, hacked him brutally with dangerous weapons. The applicants state that the fact that they were not directly involved would indicate that the prosecution has not been able to collect sufficient materials against them so far to establish their complicity. The overt act of assault was definitely by accused 1 to 7. Accused 8 and 9 are supposed to be the kingpin of the assault, who organized it for animosity towards the de facto complainant. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant is also involved in some cases and his companion who was present at that time with him, is also a notorious drug peddler.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri.T.A.Shaji appearing for the applicants, Shri. U.Kabeer, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and Shri E.C.Bineesh the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there is absolute lack of evidence thus far collected against the applicants to prove their complicity in the matter. Apart from the statements of the co-accused recorded by the Police, there is no cogent material to indicate that the applicants were actively involved in the conspiracy or that they were the kingpin in organizing the crime.
6. Shri Kabeer, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the de facto complainant was mercilessly attacked by the persons engaged by the applicants. It is also submitted that the 8th accused has criminal antecedents and is involved in two other criminal cases though it is admitted that the 9th accused has no criminal antecedents.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has not yet progressed to a stage where the applicants could be released on bail. The earlier application for bail was dismissed only on 25.11.2020 and the applicants have thereafter filed this application on 01.12.2020, just six days after the earlier application was dismissed. The earlier application was dismissed for the reason that the prosecution has to get more time to unravel the allegation of conspiracy which is stated by them with regard to the involvement of the applicants. The gravity of the offence cannot be undermined. The injured was first shot with a pistol and thereafter mercilessly attacked with dangerous weapons like swords and other like weapons. The de facto complainant has got over that attack and he is still convalescing. But that alone could not be a reason to let the applicants on bail. As stated by me earlier, the act of the applicants will have to be investigated by the investigation team and I am told by the learned Prosecutor that the investigation has now been handed over to the Crime detachment. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicants who had allegedly organised a broad daylight attack on the de facto complainant, in a brazen manner in the middle of the road by accused 1 to 7. It cannot be taken lightly and the conspiracy, if any, involving the applicants will definitely have to be investigated in depth. It is still too early to release the applicants on bail. The principles of re
