PRADEEP v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1848/2023 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.811 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S:** **PRADEEP, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN, B.K. BHAVANAM, S.W. THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690523** **BY ADVS. P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ E.C.AHAMED FAZIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 2 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** **-------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5495 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2024** ## **ORDER** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused in Crime No.1848/2023 of the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner had filed two similar applications before the Court of Session, Kollam, and the same were also dismissed by Annexures A4 and A5 orders. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.11.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 21.11.2023, at around 12:45 hours, the accused, due to his previous animosity towards one Thulaseedharan (deceased), indiscriminately stabbed the deceased on his BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 3 abdomen with a knife and inflicted fatal injuries on him. Accordingly, the deceased lost his life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than seven months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception applies to the facts of the case. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in four BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 4 other crimes for allegedly committing serious offences. In the instant case, the petitioner has brutally murdered the deceased by indiscriminately stabbing the deceased multiple times on his abdomen. Merely, because the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last eight months is not a ground to enlarge him on bail in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan** [(2004) 7 SCC 528] . If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that on 21.11.2023, the petitioner had indiscriminately stabbed the deceased on his abdomen multiple times and murdered the deceased. The postmortem certificate dated 22.11.2023 clearly demonstrates the 15 antemortem injuries suffered by the deceased. The said certificate along with the other materials on record prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in the crime, though that is a BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 5 matter to be ultimately decided at the time of trial. In addition to the same, it is seen that the petitioner is involved as accused in Crime Nos.2323/2013, 1584/2014, 1229/2020 and 129/2020 of the Karunagappally Police Station and Crime No.1693/2020 of the Ochira Police Station. Crime Nos.1229/2020 and 1693/2020 are registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing a serious offence under Section 308 of the IPC. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner is a habitual offender. ## 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 6 - (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”. 8. Likewise, in **Gurucharan Singh Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)** [(1978) 1 SCC 118], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that while considering an application of bail, it is necessary to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State, and similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 7 9. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr** [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines :- “30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.” 10. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 8 the crime, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed, the character, behavior and standing of the accused, the prosecution’s legitimate 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. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations leveled against the petitioner, the prima facie materials that establish the petitioner's involvement in the crime, that the petitioner is a history sheeter and the apprehension projected by the prosecution that there is every likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail, as it would have a deleterious impact on the society. The application is meritless and is only to be dismissed. Resultantaly, the application is dismissed. BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 9 The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Court of Session, Kollam, since I am of the view that the petitioner would have to face the custodial trial. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** Rkc/01.08.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 5495 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5495/2024** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1848 OF 2023 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1848 OF 2023 PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM** **Annexure A3 ORDER DATED 07-02-2024 IN BAIL APPL.811/2024 ON HIGH COURT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 587 OF 2024 IN S.C. NO. 227 OF 2024 PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM Annexure A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.05.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 990 OF 2024 IN S.C. NO. 227 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV, KOLLAM**