NIDHIN JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in B.A No.8285/2016 is the 2nd accused in Crime No.2836/2016 of the Changanassery Police Station registered under Sections 341, 302, 109, 201, 202 and 212 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner in B.A No.8527/2016 is the 3rd accused therein, the petitioner in B.A No.8467/2016 is the 4th accused, and the petitioner in B.A No.8667/2016 is the 5th accused in the above crime. All the four accused seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the 5th accused seeks bail for the second time, the others seek bail for the first time. The first application brought by the the 5th accused was dismissed by this Court on 21.11.2016.

(2.) This crime relates to the murder of a youngster aged 33 years. There are altogether seven accused in the crime. As against the accused Nos.6 and 7, the allegation is that they screened the offenders after the incident. All the others are now in judicial custody. The 6th accused was granted bail by this Court on a different consideration that the allegations as against him are not under Section 302 I.P.C. The alleged incident happened in connection with a dispute regarding parking of two vehicles in front of a hotel. Of course, no previous enmity or other definite motive is seen alleged. However, there is something to suspect that there was some difference of opinion between the parties due to some political dispute.

(3.) On a perusal of the prosecution records, I find that the victim had sustained so many injuries on his body in the alleged incident. The material witnesses are consistent that the fatal injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased by the 1st accused. On a perusal of the materials including the statements given by two material witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate, I find that the victim was caught hold of by the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 to facilitate infliction of fatal injuries by the 1st accused with a dagger. The stand taken by the others that only the first accused can be made liable for murder, is not acceptable at this stage. The involvement of the accused Nos.3,4 and 5 in the alleged act of offence is well revealed by the prosecution records including the statements given by the material witness Jacob @ Binu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Of course, as against the 2nd accused, there is no definite material. The material witnesses are consistent that the 2nd accused was in fact sitting inside his car when the victim was stabbed to death by the others. Whether he had any role or complicity as abettor or otherwise is a matter for probe during trial. It is really suspicious whether the others acted at his instance or as insisted by him. In such a factual situation, on a finding that his circumstances are different, I am inclined to grant him bail on conditions. But I am not inclined to grant bail to the others whose complicity and involvement in the alleged incident is revealed by the prosecution records including the statements given by the material witnesses to the Police, and also to the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I find the definite possibility of the investigation being obstructed by way of threat to the witnesses, if the others are released on bail. When there is possibility of the witnesses being won over by the main accused who have influences politically or otherwise, it would be unsafe and inappropriate to release them at this stage.