State Of Kerala vs P.Gopalakrishnan Alias Dileep

Sophy Thomas, J

Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, prosecution seeks to cancel the bail granted to the 8th accused after quashing Annexure E order of the learned Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P No.891 of 2022.

The 8th accused in Sessions Case No.118 of 2018 was granted bail by this Court as per order dated 03.10.2017 in B.A No.6616 of 2017, on conditions. The 4th condition in that bail order was that, ‘the petitioner shall not directly, indirectly or through any agent try to influence, intimidate, threaten or coerce the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses, by any means, including words expressed or disseminated through any media including, print, electronic or visual media’.

Thereafter, prosecution filed Crl.M.P No.1299 of 2020 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancelling the bail granted to the 8th accused alleging that, he violated the bail conditions and won over some of the prosecution witnesses by influencing them. But, as per Annexure C order, the learned trial court dismissed that petition, finding that the prosecution could not convince the court that the 8th accused directly or indirectly influenced the witnesses or tampered with the evidence. That order was not challenged by the prosecution.

Subsequently, prosecution filed Annexure D petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C to cancel the bail granted to the 8th accused, based on some subsequent developments and revelations made by one Mr.Balachandrakumar in Annexure P1 petition. The prosecution was alleging that, the 8th accused influenced prosecution witnesses, destroyed evidence and even entered into a conspiracy with his friends and relatives to do away with the police officers who were in the Special Investigation Team.

As per Annexure E order dated 28.06.2022, learned trial court dismissed that petition, making various observations and findings on the grounds urged by the prosecution for cancellation of bail. Impugning Annexure E order, prosecution has come up with this petition.

Heard learned Director General of Prosecution and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.

Learned DGP brought to the notice of this Court that the trial in SC No.118 of 2018 is nearing completion and what remains is the cross examination of the investigating officer. In such circumstances, this Court is not going into the merits of the allegations, and is of the view that if the bail of the 8th accused is cancelled at this juncture, it may lead to further litigations and complications, which may frustrate the trial which is about to be completed, and may drag the proceedings indefinitely.

The crime is of the year 2017 and after a long drawn trial, it is nearing completion. So, this Court is of the view that, let the trial be completed and the case be disposed of at the earliest. The crimes if any registered for destroying evidence, influencing/ threatening witnesses or for the conspiracy to do away with the investigating officers etc. may take its course till it is logically concluded in accordance with law.

Learned DGP expressed apprehension over the findings and observations made by the learned trial Judge, while disposing Crl.M.P No.891 of 2022. For example, learned DGP drew the attention of this Court to the observation made by the trial court in page No.26 of Annexure E order that ‘I cannot conclude that the accused deleted the evidence in connection with this case for the simple reason that the FSL report contains the fact that they deleted some conversation on 30.01.2022, in the absence of cogent evidence that the so called deleted conversations have connection with this case’. In page 27 of that order, learned trial court has stated that ‘I cannot hold that the respondent caused disappearance of evidence simply for the reason that the mobile phone was subjected to examination in a private lab’.

Learned DGP would submit that, very many statements are there in Annexure E order made by the trial court, which may have an adverse impact, on appreciation of evidence by the trial court, at the final stage. So, his prayer is to clarify that the observations and findings in Annexure E order made by the trial court, are only for the purpose of disposal of that petition, and it cannot have any adverse influence while appreciating evidence in SC No.118 of 2018.

Since the trial court has made some observations and findings in Crl.M.P No.891 of 2022, which may tend to appear that the learned Judge has made up her mind as to the destruction of evidence and influencing/threatening the witnesses etc. alleged by the prosecution, this Court is inclined to clarify Annexure E order as follows:-

It is clarified that the findings and observations made by the trial court in Annexure E order are only for the purpose of disposal of Crl.MP No.891 of 2022, and it shall not affect appreciation of evidence in SC No.118 of 2018. Learned trial Judge has to appreciate the available facts and evidence in SC No.118 of 2018 independently, and untrammeled by any of the observations and findings in Annexure E order.

With this clarification, above Crl.M.C is disposed of.