STATE OF KERELA Vs. AYYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the petitioner in these Crl. M. Cs. The State claims to be aggrieved by the impugned common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, under which accused Nos. 6 and 7, the respondents herein, who faced allegations, inter alia, under Sections 120b, 302 and 307 r/w. 149 I. P. C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act were enlarged on bail.

(2.) THE alleged incident had taken place on 3. 11. 2006 at about 9 p. m. According to the police, the incident in this case is a sequel to internecine goonda warfare, which has become prevalent in a village by name Kuttoor in Trichur Dist. There is an ongoing feud between the members of two rival gooda groups. The respondents herein are allegedly the ones at the helm of one group. It is alleged that on account of the animosity that exist between the two groups, two deceased persons and the defacto complainant were attacked on 3. 11. 2006 with dangerous weapons by accused Nos. 1 to 5. It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondents herein are the brains behind the attack. They were responsible for securing personnel and arms to attack the deceased persons and the defacto complainant. A number of cases are pending between these two groups, it is alleged. All the eight accused persons were arrested on 8. 11. 2006. When the application for bail came up for consideration on 19. 12. 2006, the Investigator filed a written objection, a copy of which has been placed before me for my perusal now. The objections clearly show that the prayer for bail is vehemently opposed by the Prosecutor. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, which I extract below, proceeded to grant bail to the petitioners.

(3.) THE learned Prosecutor submits that there has been no proper application of mind at all. The learned Prosecutor points out that the learned Sessions Judge had not even taken note of the fact that the application for bail is opposed by the Prosecutor. The precise complicity of the respondents/accused or the contentions of the Prosecutor have not been adverted to at all. The learned Sessions Judge did not take note of the fact that the Investigation was not complete and the Prosecutor had wanted further time to complete the investigation.