RIYAS Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No:240/2012 of Areacode Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are under sections 143, 147, 148, 120(b), 302, 212 and 201 r/w 149 of IPC and section 7 r/w 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2012 and he has been in custody since then. His application for bail was dismissed by this court as per Annexure A3 order dated 09.07.2012.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no material has been collected by the Investigating agency to show that the petitioner was one of the conspirators in the commission of the murder. According to the learned counsel the only offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are under sections 201 and 212 of I.P.C., which are only bailable offences. He would also submit that even in the second remand report, filed by the Police before the learned Magistrate, nothing has been stated to indicate that the petitioner conspired with other accused persons to cause the murder of the two persons mentioned in the crime. This has been strongly resisted by the learned Director General of Prosecution. In the second remand report also it has been stated that the accused persons had, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, caused the murder of the two persons etc. Those accused persons include the petitioner herein, who is the 8th accused, the learned D.G.P. submits. The specific overt act that he helped his brother- in-law, who was one of the murderers, to leave the country has been cited only as one of the instances to prove the criminal conspiracy but it does not mean that, that was the only overt that can be found against the petitioner herein, the learned D.G.P. submits. The facts of the case and the observations made by this court, while disposing Annexure A3 application can be stated here to avoid repetition of the facts. It was stated thus:

(3.) THE learned Director General of Prosecution, Mr. Asaf Ali, would submit that there was a deep rooted conspiracy to cause the murder of Abdul Kalam Azad and his brother and others, who were the accused in the earlier Athik Rahiman murder case and therefore, it is not a case where this petitioner has committed only the offence under section 212 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to show that this petitioner had entered into any criminal conspiracy and so the petitioner cannot be detained any more. The learned Director General of Prosecution has produced the copies of Case Diary statements, mahazars and other documents to fortify his submission that there was deeper conspiracy to cause the murder of the deceased persons in this case. The learned D.G.P. has not detailed in court all the materials so far collected by the investigating agency, as disclosure of the same would adversely affect the smooth investigation of the case, but has produced those materials so as to enable the Court to peruse the same. It is pointed out that even long prior to the date of the incident, arrangements were made by the accused persons in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to collect men and materials and also to arrange vehicles to reach the place of attack and also to escape from the scene and even to escape from this country. It was done sufficiently early. It was also stated that the investigating agency has collected materials as to the further details of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons."