Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2457 (KER)

Sajad, S/o. Noushad v. State Of Kerala

2025-09-15

GOPINATH P.

body2025
JUDGMENT : GOPINATH P., J. Crl.A.No.835/2025 has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated 28-04-2025 in Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in S.C.No.1253/2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Nedumangad, denying regular bail to the appellant, who is the 2 nd accused in the case. 2. Crl.A.No.1542/2025 has been filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, challenging the order dated 15-07-2025 in Crl.M.P No.460/2025 in S.C.No.1253/2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Nedumangad, denying regular bail to the appellant, who is the 1 st accused in the case. 3. SC No.1253/2021 arises from Crime No.1167/2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district. 4. The allegation in brief is the following: The 1 st accused (appellant in Crl.A.No.1542/2025) was arrested in connection with Crime No.492/2021 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, alleging commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 . The 1 st accused, the 2 nd accused (appellant in Crl.A.No.835/2025) and one Sambath (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were friends, and the deceased allegedly spread rumours that the 1 st accused got arrested owing to certain information given by the 2 nd accused. However, both the accused killed Sambath out of the belief that it was Sambath who had actually given information leading to the arrest of the 1 st accused in connection with Crime No.492/2021 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these cases would submit that the appellants have been in custody for four years and two and a half months. It is submitted that the 2 nd accused had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of this Court (Annexure-A4 in Crl.A.No.835/2025), and the Supreme Court by Annexure-A5 order dated 06-11-2023 had permitted the appellant/2 nd accused to application for bail if the trial of the case gets protracted. It is submitted that the 2 nd accused had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of this Court (Annexure-A4 in Crl.A.No.835/2025), and the Supreme Court by Annexure-A5 order dated 06-11-2023 had permitted the appellant/2 nd accused to application for bail if the trial of the case gets protracted. It is submitted that though the final report was filed and the trial was also scheduled, the Trial Court could not commence the proceedings on account of the fact that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has not been received so far. It is submitted that notwithstanding the earlier orders of the Trial Court and of this Court rejecting the bail applications of the appellants, the appellants may be granted bail on the ground of long incarceration. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the mother of the deceased vehemently oppose the grant of bail. It is pointed out that on several occasions, the Trial Court as well as this Court had rejected the bail applications filed by the appellants, specifically noticing the brutal nature of the crime committed by the appellants. It is submitted that the deceased had suffered 93 antemortem injuries. It is pointed out that both appellants have criminal antecedents, and it was after noticing these facts that both the Trial Court and this Court had rejected the earlier bail applications filed by the appellants. It is submitted that in Annexure-A4 order, produced along with Crl.A.No.835/2025, this Court had observed that this is a fit case where the accused must face trial in custody. It is submitted that this Court, while considering the bail application of the 1 st accused, had observed in the order dated 20-06-2022 in B.A.No.1456/2022 that the brutal nature of the offence committed by the 1st accused, the criminal antecedents of the 1 st accused, the distinct possibility of witnesses being influenced or intimidated, and the possibility of the appellant/1 st accused indulging in other offences compel this Court to reject the bail application. It is submitted that there is no change of circumstances warranting the grant of bail to the appellants. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the mother of the deceased, I am of the view that the appellants can be granted bail on the short ground of long incarceration. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the mother of the deceased, I am of the view that the appellants can be granted bail on the short ground of long incarceration. The appellants have completed four years and two and a half months in custody. It is not disputed before me that the trial of the case is likely to be protracted on account of the nonavailability of FSL report. That apart, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court, while disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed against Annexure-A4 order of this Court, had observed as early as 06-11-2023, that if the trial of the case gets protracted, the appellant/2 nd accused may approach the Trial Court with a fresh application for bail. Nearly two years have passed since the said order of the Supreme Court. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the trial proceedings have commenced, it appears from the proceedings dated 10-09-2025 (of the Trial Court) that on account of non-receipt of the FSL report, the trial could not be commenced. 8. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The orders impugned in both appeals will stand set aside. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:- i. The appellants shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; ii. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer, in Crime No.1167/2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, as and when summoned to do so; iii. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; iv. The appellants shall not tamper with any evidence in the case; v. The appellants shall not commit any offence while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1167/2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, may apply to the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.