Leo Varghese v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.7483 OF 2019** **SC 644/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,MOOVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO.178/2019 OF Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **LEO AGED 24 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, MATTAPPADAN HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. SASI KUMAR, KARAVATTATHU HOUSE, MANAYATH HOUSE, KOOTTUMADOM BHAGAM, KEECHERIPPADY, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 545** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.SHYAM SRI.K.K.VINOD** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031** **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 545** ## **SRI C K PRASAD-PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON 25.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.7483/2019 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ B.A.No.7483 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.178/2019 of Kuruppampady police station under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 16.02.2019, at about 00.15 hours, the accused together wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant at a public road and that the first accused stabbed him on the left chest above the abdomen with a knife and made attempt to murder him. It is further alleged that the first accused stabbed the de facto complainant on different parts of the body with the knife. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for bail B.A.No.7483/2019 3 as B.A.No.6066/2019 before this Court. The aforesaid application was dismissed by another Judge of this Court as per the order dated 27.08.2019. While dismissing the aforesaid application, the learned Judge had observed that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in ten other cases of grave nature and it was not safe to release him on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any change in the circumstances of the case since the dismissal of the aforesaid bail application. Learned counsel would submit that, at the time of dismissal of the earlier bail application, the case against the accused had not been committed to the Court of Session, but now it has been committed. It is not explained how the committal of the case to the Court of Session constitutes a change in the fact situation of the case so as to enable this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2019 and since then he is in custody. Merely for the reason that the petitioner has been in custody for a long period, he cannot be released on bail. B.A.No.7483/2019 4 6. The facts of the case, prima facie, show that the petitioner had intention to murder the de facto complainant. He had used a knife to stab the de facto complainant and caused injuries on several parts of the body. 7. The wound certificate issued by the doctor, after examination of the de facto complainant in the hospital on 16.02.2019 at 02.15 hours, discloses that the de facto complainant had sustained the following injuries: (1) Stab wound on the front of abdomen, extending upto the liver and with bleeding inside abdominal cavity. (2) Cut wound above left hip. (3) Cut wound in the left flank region. (4) Cut wound on the right arm. (5) Cut wound on the left arm (6) Cut wound on the left forearm below the elbow (7) Cut wound on the back of the left index finger. 8. The report of the investigating officer reveals that the petitioner is an accused in the following cases which are pending: (1) Crime No.1177/2018 of Kuruppampady police station registered under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 308 read with 34 I.P.C. (2) Crime No.855/2018 of Kuruppampady police station B.A.No.7483/2019 5 registered under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. (3) Crime No.132/2016 of Angamaly police station registered under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C and also under Sections 25(1-a) and 27 of the Arms Act. (4) Crime No.4180/2017 of Perumbavoor police station registered under Sections 323, 395, 506(i) and 397 read with 120B I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. (5) Crime No.1655/2015 of Kunnathunadu police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 321, 324 and 427 read with 149 I.P.C. 9. The report of the investigating officer shows that the petitioner was an accused in the following cases, but he was acquitted. (1) Crime No.61/2015 of Kuruppampady police station registered under Sections 143, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with 149 I.P.C. (2) Crime No.1417/2015 of Kuruppampady police station registered under Sections 324, 326 and 308 I.P.C. (3) Crime No.51/2016 of Kothamangalam police station registered under Sections 143, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506 read with 149 I.P.C. 10. The aforesaid details of the cases pending against the B.A.No.7483/2019 6 petitioner would indicate that he is a habitual offender and if released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence in the case. 11. In **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh : (2012) 9 SCC 446** , the Supreme Court has held as follows: _“The High Court, in toto, has ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is that the accused had spent seven months in custody. That may be one of the factors but that cannot be the whole and the sole factor in every case. It depends upon the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed and its impact on the society. We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked”._ (emphasis supplied). ## 12. In **Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P : AIR 2015 SC 3703** , it ## has been held as follows: _“This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the_ B.A.No.7483/2019 7 _criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner”._ 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the case now pending before the Court of Session is posted for framing charge against the accused. It is only proper to give a direction to the Court of Session concerned to expedite the trial of the case and dispose of it at the earliest. B.A.No.7483/2019 8 15. In the result, the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail is rejected and the petition is dismissed. The Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha shall expedite the trial of the case S.C.No.644/2019, arising out of Crime No.178/2019 of Kuruppampady police station, and dispose of it at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before that court. (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** **jsr** 9 B.A.No.7483/2019 ## **APPENDIX** **B.A.NO.7483 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN B.A.6066/2019 DATED 27.08.2019.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **PS TO JUDGE**