SYJU M. THANKACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1962 of 2021 of Palarivattom Police Station alleging commission of offences under Sec. 354(D), (1), 279, 304, 109 and 201 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that his actions/omissions caused an accident of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-43 K 2221, following which, three youngsters including two young girls lost their life. It is alleged that the youngsters who were travelling in the aforesaid Car were returning after attending a Party in a Hotel, where the petitioner was also present. It is alleged that the petitioner continuously harassed the girls who were travelling in the Car and sought that they accompany him to another party. It is alleged that when they refused and left the Hotel, the petitioner chased them in his Car and this resulted in the first accused being forced to drive at a very high speed, which ultimately caused the accident.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charges are so fanciful that it is totally unbelievable that the petitioner would be, in any way, responsible for the death of the three youngsters in the Car accident. It is submitted that the investigation reveals that the first accused in the case who was driving the vehicle which met with the accident was in a highly inebriated condition and this alone could be the reason why he lost the control of the Car. It is submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is that under Sec. 304 of IPC, which, at any rate, is not attracted even assuming that all the allegations against the petitioner are taken to be true. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 27/11/2021 and his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation into the matter.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that after the petitioner was taken into custody, instances of various other crimes committed by the petitioner, including crimes under the provisions of the NDPS Act have been revealed and further that there are clear CCTV visuals including visuals from traffic cameras, which would show the manner in which the petitioner had caused the accident in question. It is submitted that the petitioner is a very wealthy and influential person and the grant of bail at this stage of investigation, may not be conducive for a successful prosecution of the petitioner. It is finally submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, it may be on very stringent conditions.