The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a bail petition from P. Mohanan of Kakkatil in Kozhikode, arrayed as accused No.14 in the Revolutionary Marxist Party leader T. P. Chandrasekharan murder case in May last year. Mohanan was arrested on June 29, 2012.
A Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and S.J. Mukhopadhaya dismissed the petition at the admission stage itself.
The prosecution case was that on May 4, 2012, the accused conspired and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and hacked Chandrasekharan to death at Vallikkat Town in Kozhikode district and hurled bomb against the persons who rushed to the scene of the crime.
The petitioner contended that the important point involved in the present special leave petition was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail to him when he had been roped in the crime as one of the conspirators and the allegation against him was spoken by two witnesses that the petitioner was seen with few other accused.
The petitioner had been in custody for over six months and since the final report had been filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping in custody.
He said: “There are 284 witnesses cited by the prosecution and voluminous documents are relied on by the prosecution so that it is unlikely that the trial will be over though the High Court directed the completion of trial by a particular date. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.”
“It will be improper for any court to refuse bail. Petitioner is not one of the perpetrators of the crime. The petitioner was roped in only on the basis of the statement of charge witnesses, viz. CW 166 and CW 167, that he was seen conspiring with accused 8 to 10 at the flower shop of accused No.30. The charge lay before the Court alleged the same. Accused No.9 and 10 who are similarly placed were granted bail by the High Court. But bail is denied to the petitioner.” Hence the special leave petition against the Kerala High Court judgment.