[Periya Double Murder Case] Kerala High Court Dismisses Second Bail Plea Of Accused; Directs CBI To Complete Investigation In 4 Months

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to wind up the investigation within 4 months in the Periya twin murder case where two activists were hacked to death in 2019.

Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi issued this direction while dismissing the second bail application filed by one of the accused in the matter. 

"In the instant case, two young persons, who were aged 21 years and 24 years, were done to death by their political opponents. The impact of such a crime on the society cannot be ignored...Even the spread of the pandemic COVID-19 cannot be projected as a sufficient ground to release an accused on bail in a case of grave crime like murder," the Court observed.

Further, considering that a report under Section 173(2) of CrPC has already been filed and that a Division Bench of the Court had directed the investigation to be completed expeditiously, the Court found it appropriate to issue a direction for completing investigation within 4 months.

Background 

The murder of two young men Kripesh and Sarath Lal, two Youth Congress activists on 17th February 2019 had caught the attention of the entire nation when the matter reached the Supreme Court. 

The main accused was the Branch Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). It was found that there was personal as well as political enmity between the accused and the deceased persons. 

The applicant along with the other accused had allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder the duo. Pursuant to this, they allegedly attacked the deceased with iron pipes and swords causing them fatal injuries. Both the activists succumbed to their injuries before reaching the hospital.

Accordingly, the applicant, who has been arrayed as the 11th accused, was arrested on 29th April 2019. The investigation into the matter was initially launched by the Kerala Police. When the case reached the Kerala High Court in 2019, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. This investigation is still underway. 

Contentions

This is the second bail application preferred by the applicant in the matter. The Assistant Solicitor General P. Vijayakumar for the CBI argued that there was no change of circumstance since the dismissal of the earlier bail application filed and therefore, the present application is not maintainable.

Advocate M Sasindran appearing for the applicant submitted that since he is not an influential person, there was no question of him intimidating or influencing the witnesses. He also argued that he had no role in the alleged conspiracy in the matter.

Both these questions were considered elaborately by the Court in the first bail application, and both were discarded as holding no merit.

Findings

Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the Court found no merits in the arguments of the applicant and noted that he was not entitled to be released on bail at this stage as there is no change in circumstances.

"Since the dismissal of the last application for bail filed by the petitioner, the CBI has actually commenced the investigation in the case. This is the only change in circumstance with regard to the fact situation of the case. But, such change is not in favour of the petitioner but against him," the Court remarked.

Further, upon perusal of the decision in State of Kerala v. Mahesh, the Court observed that "Even the spread of the pandemic COVID-19 cannot be projected as a sufficient ground to release an accused on bail in a case of grave crime like murder." 

The applicant had contended that he had spent almost two years under incarceration. To this, the Bench responded that a long period of detention in jail, by itself, is not sufficient ground to grant bail in a case in which the accusation is of committing a double murder.

The Single Bench also noted that in Dilawar v. State of Haryana, the Apex Court had issued a similar direction to the CBI to complete the investigation within a specific period when the accused was in custody.

Following the precedent laid down by this decision, the Court issued the order. However, it was also emphasized by the Bench that the applicant cannot be detained in jail indefinitely.

"Inordinate delay in the investigation may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when the accused is in custody. Prosecution cannot be allowed to become persecution. A speedy investigation is recognized as a part of fundamental right of fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,"  the Court reiterated.

It was for this reason that the time period of 4 months was given to the CBI.

Case Title: Pradeep v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Click Here To Read The Order