SREEKANTAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of one Srikantan Nair, 1st accused in C.C. No. 196 of 1124 on the file of the Division First Class Magistrate, Quilon. On 26th Edavam 1124 the Inspector of Police, Quilon Town filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and 21 others for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 140, 141, 332, 353 and 337 of the Travancore Penal Code and for commission of certain 'prejudicial acts' punishable under S. 9 (1) and (5) of the Travancore Emergency Powers Act, 1122. The Magistrate refused bail to the petitioner and his application before the Sessions Court, Quilon, was equally unsuccessful. Motion is now made on his behalf invoking this Court's jurisdiction under S. 409, Criminal Procedure Code, to admit him to bail.

(2.) Of the several offences with which the accused in the case are charged, that under the Emergency Powers Act alone is non bailable. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under S. 9 (5) thereof is imprisonment for three years. Though the High Court's jurisdiction under S. 409 to enlarge an under-trial prisoner on bail is unfettered by anything contained in the preceding S. 408, it is settled law that it would be a relevant circumstance for the High Court in disposing of applications for bail to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the prisoner is guilty of a non bailable offence. Among the case laying down this rule mention may be made of Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All. 356 and Jogelker v. Emperor AIR 1931 All. 504 which arose out of applications for bail made by the Meerut Conspiracy case prisoners before the Allahabad High Court. Reference will have to be made to these cases again in this order. They say, among other things, that the question whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner is guilty of a non bailable offence is a matter appropriate for consideration along with all other circumstances of the case.

(3.) The substance of the case against the petitioner is that on the after noon of 11th Edavam 1124 at about 3.15 p.m. he led an unlawful assembly of about 200 persons armed with deadly weapons, such as sticks, stones, etc., and forcibly attempted to enter the premises of the A.D. Cotton Mills, Quilon, after overcoming or overpowering the Police force stationed there to maintain law and order, and that he himself used or attempted to use force against responsible Police Officers on duty. It would appear that in the incidents that followed, some among the Police party got actually injured at the hands of the members of the unlawful assembly led by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the members of the unlawful assembly indulged in raising slogans calculated to bring the then Government of Travancore into hatred and contempt. The charge sheet gives sufficient indication that the prosecution will be able to produce good prima facie evidence in support of the charge. One cannot reasonably expect or look for more at this stage. Against the background of the happenings on the 10th, and again earlier in the day on the 11th itself, which happenings form the subject of the charges against the petitioner and several others in P.E. No. 13 of 1124 on the file of the Quilon Second Class Magistrate's Court and C.C. No. 195 of 1124 on the file of the Division First Class Magistrate's Court, Quilon, out of which Crl. M.P. Nos. 8 and 11 of 1124 respectively arise, it is difficult to hold that the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge acted wrongly in refusing to enlarge on bail the petitioner who led in open defiance of law and constituted authority a riotous assembly of nearly 200 persons. In the two other cases referred to, it would appear the petitioner is charged only as an abetter who was not present at the scene of occurrence. The incidents giving rise to those cases themselves would seem to have caused serious breach of peace and actual harm or fear of danger to person and property. It is most unlikely and extremely improbable the petitioner was not aware of the consequences of the prior incidents and to have ventured on another expedition putting himself at the head of a riotous assembly of about 200 persons armed with deadly weapons is not anything commendable to a man of his position and academic qualifications. It is well known that there is serious labour unrest throughout the land and to foment or lead the same through unconstitutional channels does not do credit to any leadership.