Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2851 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1796/2023 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.472 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` ANILKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SREENIVASAN, KALLUMPURATH VEEDU, IKKARAMKUZHI, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691503 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691301`** ``` BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A No.2851 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 6[th ] day of June, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.1796/2023 of the Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 326(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 29.11.2023, at around 11 hours, the accused poured petrol over his father named Sreenivasan (deceased), who was 85 years, and set him ablaze. The deceased suffered serious burn injuries and lost his life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.Siju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C K Suresh, the B. A No.2851 of 2024 3 learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner is suffering from Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder which is evident from Annexure A3 certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to comprehend his acts and is entitled to the benefit of Section 330(1) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been filed. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, opposing the application. He submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The petitioner has committed a very heinous offence by B. A No.2851 of 2024 4 the patricide, by pouring petrol and burning his father. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice and also tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan** (2004 (7) SCC 528) contended that merely because the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last seven months is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he poured petrol over his father and setting him ablaze. The deceased sustained fatal burn injuries and lost his life. The materials placed on record prima facie shows the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. However, that is a matter to be ultimately decided after trial. B. A No.2851 of 2024 5 ## 7. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while dealing with bail applications by holding as follows: “9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while 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”. B. A No.2851 of 2024 6 ## 8. Similarly, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,** [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Honourable Supreme Court observed thus: “11.The law regarding grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598] and uran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338.) 9. The law has thus crystalised that while deciding an application for bail under Section 439, the courts are obliged to look into the nature, gravity and seriousness of the crime, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed, the character, behaviour and standing of the accused, the prosecution’s legitimate B. A No.2851 of 2024 7 apprehension regarding the tampering of evidence, the flight risk that is involved and whether releasing the accused on bail would have a deleterious impact on the society. 10 After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and the law on the point, especially on evaluating the nature, gravity and seriousness of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may flee from justice and also intimidate the witnesses and further that the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on him, and further if the petitioner is released on bail there would be a deleterious impact on the society, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail because there is a danger of justice being thwarted. Hence, I hold that this is not a fit case B. A No.2851 of 2024 8 to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner would have to face the trial as an under trial prisoner. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. **SD/-** rmm/6/6/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**