KARUVANGADN MUKTHAR Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos.1,4,7 and 8 and they along with the co-accused, face prosecution for offences punishable under sections 143,147,148,120B and 302 read with section 149 IPC in Crime No. 240/2012 of Arecode police station. The allegation was that the accused, due to previous enmity towards the deceased persons , conspired to commit murder of the above two persons, formed into an unlawful assembly on 10/6/2012 at about 7.30.p.m., committed rioting and hacked to death the two persons with choppers. After crime was registered, investigation was conducted and accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, final report was laid. Bail was granted to the petitioners on 12/9/2012 subject to the condition that they shall not in any manner try to influence or coerce the victim or witnesses. The matter is now pending as SC No. 99/2013 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri.

(2.) Annexure A1 application was filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail granted to accused Nos. 4 and 8 on an allegation that they intimidated CW14 and his cousin on 29/5/2018. CW 14 is the son of the one of the deceased. It was alleged that they threatened witnesses against deposing in favour of the prosecution. Pursuant to the complaint laid, Crime No. 222/2018 was registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 506 read with section 734 IPC. Thereafter, Annexure A2 application was filed by the prosecution for cancelation of bail granted to accused Nos. 1,4 and 7. It was alleged that accused, 1 4 and 7 had approached CW78, who was witness to the mahazar for the recovery of weapon concealed by the accused and offered him huge amount for not deposing in favour of the prosecution.

(3.) The respondents who are the present petitioners filed detailed objections. It was contended that the allegation was absolutely false. It was contended that 66 witnesses had been examined till then, out of which 45 had turned hostile. Out of the witnesses who turned hostile, 2 witnesses were relatives of the deceased. 14 were neighbours of the deceased. None of the above witnesses who turned hostile has a case that they were coerced, threatened or intimidated by the accused. It was contended that there was no truth in the allegations raised against them. None of the accused had threatened any of the witnesses, it was contended.