AJITHKUMAR ALIAS AJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd accused in Crime No.227/2005 of Mararikkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.115, 120B, 307 and 302 read with sec.34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 20.7.2005. The petitioner was arrested on 29.7.2005.

(2.) Sri V.K.Mohanan, the learned Addl. Director General of Prosecutions, opposed the application by contending inter alia as follows:- This is a pre-planned murder well conceived of by accused Nos.6 and 7 for the extermination of their arch-enemy Ramesh. The operation was successfully executed as if it was a road accident by ramming the lorry driven by the 1st accused into the Tata Safari car in which the deceased was travelling along the Alappuzha-Ernakulam National Highway. If the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused, is carrying on a poultry business at Palluruthy, there was no occasion for him to be inside the cabin of the offending lorry. His presence along with the 1st accused in the lorry on the ill-fated day is not a sheer co-incidence. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 are hired assassins engaged by accused Nos.6 and 7 for the purpose of annihilating Ramesh. Persons like the petitioner who indulge in man-slaughter for reward cannot be released on bail. It is true that the 1st accused in the case has been granted bail by this court. But the State is moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the grant of bail to the 1st accused. Many of the prosecution witnesses are employees of accused Nos.6 and 7 and if the main participants of the occurrence are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. The tests laid down by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P. - 2006(2) KLT 806 and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan - (2004) 7 SCC 528 are not satisfied in this case by the petitioner so as to justify his release on bail.

(3.) I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submission. Pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner for more than 1 = years is too long a period to satisfy the vanity of law. If the complicity of the petitioner is proved in the trial, the commencement of which itself may not take place in the near future, the petitioner may deserve condign punishment. But keeping him under confinement as an under-trial prisoner for this long, does not serve the purpose of law. I am not satisfied that the continued detention of the petitioner who has been languishing in the prison for more than 1 = years at the pre-trial stage is warranted. The apprehensions of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty-fve thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M.-I, Alappuzha, and subject to the following conditions:-