Thilajan And Ors vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The applicants are accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.1917/2020 of Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 307, 450 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

This is the second time the applicants are approaching this Court for bail. The earlier bail application filed as BA 7631/2020 was dismissed by this Court on 08.10.2020 for the reason that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the applicants had engaged the 7th accused, who is a notorious criminal for attacking the de facto complainant and attempting the murder. It is also stated that the 7th accused who is a notorious criminal has 11 other cases registered against him and proceedings under Section 107 and KAAPA were also initiated against him. Such a person was engaged by the applicants' brother with their knowledge to eliminate the de facto complainant. Very grave injuries were also sustained by the de facto complainant like fracture of skull and incised wound on the scalp. Deadly weapons like swords were used to attack the de facto complainant. The house of the de facto complainant was trespassed to perform the act and had not medical attendance being given to him it could definitely have resulted in his murder.

The applicants state that, they have been in custody for about 75 days since 18.10.2020 and have been subjected to custodial interrogation. Therefore further incarceration may not be necessary.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned prosecutor opposed the application for bail stating that there are no change of circumstances which enable this Court to take a different view in this attempted murder.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the 7th accused was engaged by the brother of the applicants and not by them. The remuneration was also allegedly given by him. Therefore, there is no necessity for further incarceration of the applicants.

After having heard the entire submissions made by both sides, I find that successive bail applications can be entertained only in case of change in circumstance. The fact that the applicants have been incarcerated for some more time is no reason for taking a different view. In case of economic frauds, certain documents will have to be seized and therefore a different view can be taken if the investigation has progressed to a great extent. But in the instant case the offence alleged against the applicants is that they had engaged a person for committing the murder of the de facto complainant and it is true that it was their brother who had contacted the 7th accused. But nevertheless the role attributed to the applicants cannot be deleted. Under the circumstances, they are not entitled to regular bail prayer to the statutory period contemplated under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.

The application for regular bail is therefore dismissed.