PRAJIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the 3 rd accused among the three personally arrayed as accused in the instant Crime No.980/2019 of Thamarassery Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 11.1.0216 at about 4.30 p.m., A1 had smeared cyanide supplied by the 2 nd accused in the tablet at the Dental Clinic of one Alexander Kora at Thamarassery, Wayanad District with the intention and preparation to cause the death of Ponnamattom Sili. The said lady victim Sili has subsequently had died on the same day (11.1.2016) due to alleged poisoning by cyanide. According to the investigating agency, the investigation materials would show that the cyanide was supplied by the petitioner herein (A3) to A2, who in turn to supplied to A1 (Jolly). Further the investigating agency would also state that the investigation has revealed that the ornaments of the deceased Sili was obtained by A1 (Jolly) at Shanthi Hospital. Further the petitioner herein (A3) is also involved as A3 in similar case in Crime No.189/2011 of Kodencherry Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 465 , 468 and 471 r/w.Sec.34 of the IPC as well as Crime No.335/2019 of Kodencherry Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC . In those cases also, the prosecution case is that the petitioner herein (A3) had aided and abeted A1 by supplying cyanide to A2.

(3.) Sri. Krishnadas P. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A3) would submit that the above said allegations raised against the petitioner are absolutely false and fabricated. Further that the investigating agency has not been able to collect any proper evidence against the petitioner to even remotely connect the petitioner with the crime or that he had any intention or knowledge that the alleged cyanide said to have been supplied by him to A2 was to be used by A1 for the murder of the deceased person concerned. Further it is also argued that the investigating agency has not able to get any materials so as to even remotely or indirectly connect the petitioner herein (A3) with A1. More crucially Sri. Krishnadas P. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the similar case in Crime No.189/2011, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 along with the very same accused Nos. 1 and 2 and facing the similar allegations, this Court has already granted regular bail to the petitioner as per Annexure-B order dated 25.11.2019 in B.A.No.8348/2019. The petitioner has been arrested in relation to his involvement as A3 in the instant case in Crime No.980/2019 of Thamarassery Police Station on 5.11.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in view of the above said aspects and more particularly taking into account Annexure-B order and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case for the last 36 days, his continued incarceration may not be necessary and that this Court may order to release him on regular bail, subject to any stringent conditions, which the petitioner will be faithfully complied with.