Ajin Reji Mathew v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.549/2019 OF Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **AJIN REJI MATHEW, AGED 19 YEARS, SON OF REJI MATHEW, CARALIL VEEDU, KUMBANAD, KADAPPRA P.O., KOIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 547.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY SHRI.DR.ABHILASH O.U.** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **SRI S.A. SAJJU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **2** ## **ORDER** This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant herein is the accused in S.C.No.933 of 2019 of the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, he finds himself charge sheeted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the IPC. 3. The applicant is young man aged 19 years. He had some infatuation to a girl who was aged 18 years. She was pursuing her Radiology course. However, she did not reciprocate with the same feelings. Aggrieved by the above, on 12.03.2019 at about 9.15 am, the applicant herein approached the deceased, armed with a knife and a can of petrol and intercepted her near Chilanka Junction at Thiruvalla. He then proceeded and inflict a stab injury on the right side of her chest. While the hapless girl was writhing in pain, the applicant poured petrol over her body and set her ablaze. Crime 549 of 2019 was initially registered under Section 307 of the IPC, based on the information furnished by the injured girl. Though the girl was immediately rushed to Pushpagiri Hosptial **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **3** Thiruvalla, she succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on 20.03.2019. The investigation was completed in quick time and the final report was laid. The case is now pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Sri. B. Ashok Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant herein is a teenager. He has been in custody from 12.03.2019 onwards. As the final report has been laid, no purpose would be served in keeping him in prison. He would further urge that except in exceptional cases, where there are circumstances suggestive of the likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice by interfering with the evidence, it is the duty of the court to enlarge the accused on bail. According to the learned counsel, a person on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one in custody. He would also take pains to remind this Court that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex court in **Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh** [2018 (3) SCC 22] and it is argued that while considering an application for bail, this Court should not be carried away by the severity of the accusations. **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **4** 5. Sri.S.A.Sajju, the learned Public Prosecutor, has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the version of the prosecution would show that a young girl, who was just starting her life, was murdered in a very brutal and diabolic manner in public view. He would point out that the applicant had procured a knife, petrol and a lighter and it was after much preparation that he had confronted the young girl. It is submitted that the incident had shocked the whole community as it was done in public view. The entire incident was captured in a cam placed in a nearby shop. The victim herself had narrated the incident to the police as well as to the Doctor who had treated her. It is further submitted that CWs 2 to 4 are the witnesses to the incident and they have also narrated the shocking incident and the manner in which the life of the girl was taken away by the accused. The reasonable prospects of the applicant influencing the eye witnesses and subverting the prosecution case coupled with the nature and gravity of the accusations and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction are matters which are to be reckoned while considering the application, submits the learned counsel. 6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have carefully gone through the final report. It is also settled that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **5** considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail and finally (ix) the larger interest of the public or the State (See: **State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi** [(2005) 8 SCC 21] ; **Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr** . [(2001) 4 SCC 280]; **Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors** . [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; **Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr** . [2012 (10) SCALE 237]. 7. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another** (judgment dated 5.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1843 of 2019), it was held that the provisions for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **6** the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the higher courts. The court will have to balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail in a case to case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. 8. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel that detention in custody of the applicant herein for an indefinite period would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. As held by the Apex Court in **Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh** [AIR 2002 (SC) 1475], while liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all round effort on the part of courts to protect such liberties of individuals, but this protection can be made available to the deserving ones only. Protection cannot be termed to be absolute but stand qualified depending upon the exigencies of the situation. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost her life and also the collective interest of the community in order to ensure that parties do **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **7** not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. ## 9. In **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and** **Anr.** [JT 2012 (9) SC 155], the Apex Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under: - It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires. 19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of certain conditions.‟ **Bail Appl..No.9036 OF 2019** **8** 10. In the case on hand, the murder was committed in broad day light and in the presence of numerous witnesses. The deceased, a hapless 18 year old girl was first stabbed and then set on fire. CWs 2 to 4 are the witnesses and they speak about the horrendous nature of the incident. The victim in her statement to the police and also to the doctor had disclosed the incident in her own words. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be brushed aside at this stage. I find no reason to enlarge the applicant on bail. Having regard to the entire facts, I direct the learned Sessions Judge to give utmost precedence to the instant case and take the matter to its logical conclusion in a most expeditious manner. This application will stand dismissed. ## **SD/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** DSV/12.12.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE