Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1942** **Bail Appl.No.3246 OF 2020** # **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 226/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 7/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THAMARASSERY** **CRIME NO.980/2019 OF Thamarassery Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** **JOLLYAMMA JOSEPH @ JOLLY AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, W/O.SHAJU ZACHARIAS, PONNAMATTAM VEEDU, KOODATHAI BAZAR, THAMARASERRY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR SRI.K.P.PRASANTH SMT.T.S.KRISHNENDU SMT.ARCHANA SURESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH (THAMARASSERY P.S), KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673004.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. SUMAN CKAKRAVARTHY, SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON 30.06.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -2- ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 30th day of June 2020** Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No. 980/2019 of Tamarassery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 2 read with Section 6(2) of Poisons Act 1919. 3. The present crime pertains to the murder of a lady named Ponnamattom Sili, the first wife of the petitioner's present husband, Shaju Zacharias. Prior to that, the petitioner was allegedly involved in five other murders. The petitioner had allegedly administered cyanide to all the victims. Her first victim was, Annamma Thomas, the mother of her late husband Roy Thomas. The second victim was Tom Thomas, her father-in-law. Then she eliminated her own husband Roy Thomas, and then, it was the turn of Machadiyil B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -3- Mathew, her 1[st] husband's maternal uncle and the brother of Annamma Thomas. Thereafter, she did away with the deceased Sili and her only child Alphine. 4. The reason for the serial killings, according to the prosecution was thus: The petitioner had resided with her late husband Roy Thomas and his parents for about 14 years. All these years, she had made them believe that she was employed as a Professor in NIT, Kozhikkode. Late Annamma was a shrewd lady. Fearing that she may discover the truth about the petitioner's unemployment, she was the first to be administered cyanide in her food. After her death, the petitioner got a Will concocted in the name of her deceased father-in-law. Having got his property bequeathed in the name of her late husband Roy Thomas, she wanted the Will to come into force and hence liquidated him by administering cyanide. Next was the turn of her husband Roy Thomas. The petitioner had allegedly developed an intimacy with the 2[nd] accused M.S.Mathew @ Shaji. Roy Thomas hit the bottle and became a drunkard. Taking advantage of his inebriation, B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -4- he too was done away with in the same manner as his parents. Machadiyil Mathew grew suspicious about the death of his nephew and his parents and was inquisitive enough to be instrumental for an investigation by the Police. Fearing that he would be a stumbling block in her pursuit for happiness and financial security, he too was administered cyanide and murdered. By that time, the petitioner had developed an intimacy with her present husband Shaju. But he was a married man with a kid and she could not have got him as her husband without first removing those hurdles. Hence, very cunningly she got intimate to his wife late Sili and under the guise of helping her, went along with her for an appointment with a dentist and laced her medicines with cyanide, resulting in her death. Thereafter, her child Alphine too was eliminated in a similar manner. Playing the role of a sympathiser, she got intimate to Shaju and married him. Persistent follow-up by the siblings of Roy Thomas induced the Police to shed their indolence and proceed with the investigation seriously in Crime No.189/2011 of Kodencherry Police Station. Her B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -5- involvement in all other crimes came to the fore and she was formally arrested in this case on 21.10.2019 after being produced before Judicial First class Magistrate-II, Tamarassery in pursuance of a production warrant. She was remanded formally to judicial custody in this case. 5. The petitioner applied for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court and the said application was dismissed for the reason that the investigating officer had filed the final report prior to the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days and hence, she was found not entitled to mandatory bail. The order is at Annexure-A. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Kozhikkode by filing Crl.M.C. No.226/2020 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., which was taken up for consideration together with the Crl.M.C.No.304/2020 pertaining to Crime No.335/2019 of Kodancherry Police station pertaining to the murder of Alpine, the son of Sili. The learned Sessions Judge, vide Annexure-B dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 18.03.2020. B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -6- 6. The petitioner contends that there is no evidence against her so as to proceed with the trial. It is stated that the chemical examination report does not indicate anything to suggest the involvement of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri B.A.Aloor, strenuously argues that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had obtained cyanide from co-accused 2 and 3 and had administered the poison to eliminate the deceased lady and her son. She wanted them to be eliminated so that she could pursue her new marital life with Shaju. He was a school teacher, well settled and financially sound. The petitioner had already eliminated her previous husband in order to make way to embark upon a new life. She found Shaju to be an ideal partner for her and she could not have got him without doing away with his wife and son. That was the motive attributed to the petitioner for committing the crime in the instant case. B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -7- 8. V.R. Krishna Iyer J. has in _**Niranjan Singh & another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & others, 1980 KHC**_ _**664 : (1980) 2 SCC 559**_ , held that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. To be satisfied about a _prima facie_ case is needed, but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. Discussion at prolix length, the probabilities of the prosecution's exculpatory case or its weaknesses is unwarranted. In _**Prahlad Singh Bhati v.NCT Delhi, (2001)**_ _**4 SCC 280,**_ the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined thus:- _“(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations._ _(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail._ _(c)While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge._ _(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”_ B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -8- 9. In _**Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC**_ _**525**_ , the Appex Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and _prima facie_ satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge to be kept in mind while considering application for bail. 10. Applying the above principles to the case in hand, I find that the petitioner is a lady, who is involved in six cases in which she has allegedly murdered her close relatives, including her former husband. It is also brought in by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had attempted to commit suicide inside the jail by slashing her wrists. Timely intervention saved her life. In case she is released on bail, there is every possibility of her influencing or intimidating witnesses, repeating similar offences also cannot be ruled out, and may even go to the extent of causing harm to herself. The nature of the accusation B.A.No. 3246 of 2020 -9- definitely will have to be borne in mind and the facts in this case point out to a very grave crime allegedly committed by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore, justified and declining bail to the petitioner. I have no reason to find otherwise. The bail application is therefore, dismissed. **Sd/-** _dkr_ **ASHOK MENON** **JUDGE**