PRADEEP v. STATE OF KERALA

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 811 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1848/2023 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 88/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` PRADEEP AGED 31 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, B.K.BHAVANAM, S.W.THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM -, PIN – 690523 BY ADVS.K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` ADGP SRI GRASHOIUS KURIAKOSE SR PP SRI C K SURESH ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.811/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 7[th] day of February,2024 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.1848/2023 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 341, 323 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(‘IPC’, for short), has filed the above application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 21.11.2023, at around 12.45 p.m., the accused out of his previous animosity with Thulaseedharan (deceased), indiscriminately stabbed him on his abdomen with a knife, which resulted in his death. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K.Siju, the learned counsel B.A.No.811/2024 -:3:- appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. K. Suresh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. At any rate, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC will not be attracted. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2023, i.e., for the last 78 days. The investigation in the case is complete. The recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s continuous detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner has committed a brutal murder by mercilessly stabbing the deceased. He handed over the B.A.No.811/2024 -:4:- postmortem certificate dated 22.11.2023 to demonstrate the 15 antemortem injuries suffered by the deceased. He submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents because he is involved in six other cases of different Police Station for committing offences both under the Indian Penal Code and the Abkari Act. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he would tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. The investigation in the case is still in progress. Releasing the petitioner on bail would certainly hamper with the full and proper investigation of the case. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased by stabbing him on his abdomen. 7. It cannot be gainsaid that the exceptional power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code is B.A.No.811/2024 -:5:- wide-ranging and discretionary, and the power is to be exercised judiciously. 8. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis** **Chatterjee and Another** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: “9. …...... 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 danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” ## 9. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar** ’s case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate B.A.No.811/2024 -:6:- documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the witnesses by the accused. ## 10. In **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar** [(2020) 2 SCC ## 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. B.A.No.811/2024 -:7:- No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.” ## 11. 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 B.A.No.811/2024 -:8:- 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.” 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar , the proclamation of the law in the afore-cited precedents, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on him, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, I am of the definite 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 devoid of any merits B.A.No.811/2024 -:9:- and is only to be dismissed. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/07.02.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge