ORDER

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1217/2023 of Kadakkavoor Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 201 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A4 has filed BA No.7945/2023, BA No.8694/2023 is filed by A1, while A2 and A3 have filed BA No.8696/2023 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 27.08.2023 at 11.30 p.m., accused No.1 hit the deceased with an iron rod on his head, and the other accused took him away from the spot in a scooter. Due to the impact of the hit, he sustained injuries and later succumbed to it, and thereby, the accused committed the above offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, appearing for the petitioner in BA No.7945/2023, submits that the date of the incident was 27/8/2023. The defacto complainant had objected to the petitioners drinking liquor, and he submitted that the overt act was alleged against A1 and that the only allegation against him was that he was also in the group. It is the single injury that caused the death. Since the role of A4 is minimal, he prayed for releasing the petitioner on bail. He submits that A4 was arrested on 28/8/2023, and further incarceration is not required as the major part of the investigation is over.

5. Learned counsel Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath, appearing in BA No.8694/2023 and 8696/2023, argued on the basis of the remand report and submitted that there is no proof of A1 hitting with an iron rod. It is also pointed out that the deceased was taken to his house by A2 and A4. The death happened only on 28/8/2023 at around 1.15 p.m., and the reason for death cannot be the assault by A1. There is no evidence of any premeditated or intentional murder; there are no antecedents reported against the petitioners. Accordingly, he prayed for releasing them on bail.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail applications submits that the deceased had questioned the public consumption of liquor by the accused and, therefore, the motive of the crime is evident. It is also stated that A2 and A4 had gone to the house of the deceased and abused and threatened him. A1 had used an iron rod, which caused serious injury, as is revealed from the postmortem certificate. Recovery of the weapon, wearing apparel that shows blood strain, the scooter used by the deceased, the tower location showing the presence of all the accused together and also their act of absconding soon after the incident, all of which probablises the overt acts of the accused. He further pointed out that out of the 22 witnesses, 11 are independent witnesses. The scientific evidence shows clinching proof of the incident. It is also stated that the charge sheet has not been filed so far.

7. Learned counsel who appeared for the deceased's brother also supported the petitioners' argument and submitted that the accused persons are influential and releasing them on bail will affect the investigation and trial.

8. Considering the rival submissions, the serious nature of the crime committed and the nature of the injury inflicted, the object and motive of committing the crime, 11 witnesses being independent and coming from the same locality, the charge sheet not having been filed so far, the apprehension of the prosecution that releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage would affect the investigation being well founded, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, given the serious allegations and the supporting materials in support of the charge. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk 9 .11.2023

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7945/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 1217 OF

2023 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION OF THE INVES