MOHAMMED SALI ABDULLA MOULAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail filed by the second accused in S.C.No.436/06 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 427, 201, 120B r/w Section 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 29.3.2006 and he is in judicial custody. It is stated that some of the accused have been granted bail. The petitioner applied for bail before this court in B.A.1321/07, which was dismissed by Annexure I order dated 14.3.2007. In Annexure I order this court took note of the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and also noticed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.55/06 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Crime No.23/06 of Poochattil Police Station, Crime No.49 of Edakkad Police Station and Crime No.77/06 of Hill Palace Police Station. In Annexure A1 order, this court noticed that some of the accused persons who were granted bail have absconded and that there are instances of the prosecution witnesses being threatened by some of the accused persons.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail application submitted by accused No.11 as Bail Application No.4198/06 was disposed of by Annexure A2 order dated 20th July, 2006 wherein this court directed the learned Magistrate to commit the case within one month to the Sessions Court and also directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of records. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case was posted for trial to 22.2.2007, a report was filed by the Public Prosecutor on 21.2.2007 stating that the State wanted to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the case and seeking adjournment on that ground. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the request made by the Public Prosecutor and issued stop memo to the witnesses to whom summons were already issued. The counsel for the petitioner submits that only because of the laches on the part of the Government, a Special Prosecutor was not appointed which resulted in the case being adjourned from time to time. Now, the case is posted to 23.5.2007. He added that the case is posted to 23.5.2007 not for the examination of witnesses but it is only a formal posting.

(3.) Sri.P.G.Thampi, Director General of Prosecution submits that there are some delay and laches on the part of the Government in the case of appointment of the Special Prosecutor but that is not a ground for enlarging the second accused/petitioner on bail as he is involved in several other cases. It is submitted that release of the petitioner would be against the interests of the general public and his presence in the society would be detrimental to the peace in the locality.