Praveen C.P. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/21ST CHAITHRA, 1939** **Bail Appl..No. 2161 of 2017 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 19/2017 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ........** **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------** **PRAVEEN C.P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, NEHRU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH CENTRE, RESIDING AT CHOOZHAN HOUSE, VERKOLI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.** **RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2017, ALONG WITH B.A. NO. 2488 OF 2017 AND BA NO.2602 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **B.A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No.2602 of 2017 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of April, 2017** ## **ORDER** The petitioners in Bail application Nos 2602, 2161 and 2488 of 2017 are accused 3, 4 & 5 respectively in crime no.19 /2017 of Pazhayannur police station. The 3[rd] accused is the Vice Principal and the 4[th] and 5[th] accused are Assistant Professors of Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre at Pampady in Thrissur District. The first accused is its Chairman. Bail Application No.2602 of 2017 has been filed under Section 439 and the bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The college belongs to a Trust which has in its ownership about 20 Educational Institutions. One Jishnu Pranoy was a first semester student in the college. At about 7 p.m in the evening on 6/01/2017 after he took his examination in Physics in the afternoon he committed suicide at the men’s hostel in the college premises. The police registered the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Later, **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -2- in the course of the investigation the Investigating Officer sent a report to the court concerned informing that commission of the offences under Sections 120(B), 201,306,323,384,465,468 and 471 of IPC also was revealed. 3. The prosecution case is this. The first semester examinations were scheduled to be held in the 1[st] week of December, 2016. The University postponed the examinations to January. But all of a sudden it rescheduled it to be held in December again. Jishnu Pranoy raised a protest and exhorted other students to do so. The college authorities did not like it. So they targetted him and the petitioners and the other accused entered into a conspiracy to implicate him in a false case. On 6/01/2017 his examination in physics was from 2.00 p.m to 4.30 p.m. At about 4.00 p.m, the 4[th] accused who was the Invigilator claimed to have caught Jishnu Pranoy and one Jishnu Raj engaged in malpractice. The allegation is that the former copied the answers of the **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -3- latter, which was false. Both of them were taken to the 3[rd] accused. Jishnu Pranoy was compelled to strike off his answers. The 3[rd] and 4[th] accused obtained from him signed blank papers. Later they converted them into an apology letter and a letter admitting that Jishnu Pranoy voluntarily struck off the answers. He was threatened that he would be debarred for three years. It was this incident that lead him into committing suicide. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Prosecutor. 5. I have perused the case diary. There is no specific allegation against the 5[th] accused who is the petitioner in Bail Application No.2488/2017. He was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is the only allegation. So I do not find any impediment in granting his prayer. 6. Jishnu Pranoy allegedly left behind a suicide note, which was recovered from the room in which he committed suicide. Though it was sent for expert opinion **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -4- the expert could not express any opinion. In this note there is no whisper about harassment or assault by any of the college authorities. It runs as follows : “ I quit. My life is waste. I lost my dream. I lost my life” 7. The statement on the basis of which the case was registered was given by Amal a class mate of Jishnu Pranoy. It contains the dying declaration of the deceased. He informed the police that Jishnu Pranoy had told him that he had committed malpractice at the examination and he would be debarred for three years and he was afraid of the consequences if his family came to know about it. The informant expressed the opinion that it was the reason for Jishnu Pranoy's committing suicide. 8. The Principal of the College was questioned by the police. He disclosed that Jishnu Pranoy admitted that he had committed certain minor irregularities. 9. Later the informant and the Principal were questioned by the Investigating Officer. The informant disclosed that Jishnu Pranoy was upset because accused 3 **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -5- and 4 raised a false allegation against him that he had committed malpractice and because he was forced to execute two documents, one tendering apology and the other admitting that he voluntarily struck off his answers. The Principal also revealed that his earlier statement that Jishnu Pranoy wrote the letters in his presence was wrong and the letters were brought to him by the Vice Principal, the 3[rd] accused. He further told the Investigating Officer that his earlier statement was on the basis of the direction issued by the first accused, Chairman of the Trust. Neither the informant nor the Principal has a case that their earlier statements were wrongly recorded by the Investigating Officer. In other words, they admit that they were their voluntary statements. It is also pertinent to note that the informant had no explanation for his earlier statement. He was not even asked whether he had given an earlier statement. Thus, as of now, there are two contradictory statements by the first informant and the Principal of the College. It is also significant to note that **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -6- the Principal gave a statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. But the fact that he made contradictory statements cannot be ignored. He is a retired Professor . It cannot be easily digested that he would give false statements at the request of the first accused. 10. The Prosecution has no case that any of the petitioners or any of the accused for that matter suggested suicide by Jishnu Pranoy or desired suicide by him directly or indirectly. It means that the essential ingredient of Sec 306 IPC is absent. It is very difficult to take the view that the Section 306 IPC is attracted by the facts of the case. It also may be mentioned that this was the view taken by this Court in the Order passed in Bail ApplicationNo.1071 of 2017 filed by the first accused. The order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition. It is true that it was on different grounds also the first accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court . 11. Now the next question is whether there is an **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -7- evidence to prove that Jishnu Pranoy had been assaulted by any of the petitioners . The post mortem certificate shows an abrasion on his nose. Later a complaint was raised that Jishnu Pranoy had been assaulted by the third and the fourth accused; but the ground for such belief is not mentioned. One of the students told the police that he found blood in the saliva of Jishnu Pranoy and Jishnu Pranoy told him that he was assaulted by the said accused. That student was neither a class mate, nor a room mate of Jishnu Pranoy; he was a fourth year student while Jishnu Pranoy was a first semester student. Admittedly that student had only acquaintance with Jishnu Pranoy. It is in this context the fact that no such disclosure had been made by Jishnu Pronoy to any of his class mates or room mates is relevant. 12. The main allegation against the petitioners is that the malpractice by Jishnu Pranoy is a cooked up story. I have already mentioned that there is no such allegation in the suicide note allegedly left behind by Jishnu Pranoy or **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -8- the information given by his class mate on the basis of which the police registered the case. In fact, their case is that Jishnu Pranoy admitted malpractice at the examination. This was the statement of the principal also in his first statement. At this stage it may be mentioned that the letter in which Jishnu Pranoy admitted striking off his answers voluntarily and the letter of apology were sent for expert opinion. The opinion now available is that they are not in the hand writing of Jishnu Pranoy. 13. The facts alleged by the prosecution at best would amount to an allegation that accused 3 and 4 forged documents showing that Jishnu Pranoy voluntarily strike off his answers and he tendered an apology for it. It is doubtful whether this will attract Section 384 IPC. 14. What is the purpose of detaining accused 3 and 4 in jail. The two documents which were allegedly fabricated by them were seized by the investigating officer and sent for expert opinion. Mention has already been made about the expert opinion. So for this purpose **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -9- detention of the petitioners is not necessary. I find no other purpose for which they should be detained. 15. The reason stated by the prosecution for raising a false allegation against Jishnu Pranoy also is relevant. According to the prosecution it was the protest raised by him against the university’s rescheduling the examination and his exhortation to other students to protest against that caused the college authorities to target him. This can be accepted only with a pinch of salt because the protest was against the decision of the University and not of the college authorities. It is also relevant to note that Jishnu Pronoy joined the college only in September 2016. The occurrence took place in the first week of January 2017. 16. Learned Special Prosecutor submitted that the Court should not ignore the public sentiments. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2009(1)SCC 40** ) the Supreme Court held that the court shall not be influenced by public sentiments in deciding whether an accused should be **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -10- granted bail or not. The principle behind this is applicable not only to the courts but also to the investigating officers. The investigating officer shall not be influenced by public sentiments. They are public servants who are supposed to be honest. They should be fair to the accused also. Merely to satisfy the public or any authority they should not try to obtain the remand of the accused by hook or crook. This case was heard last week and it was taken for orders to 10.04.2017. The third accused was arrested on the previous day. To put it moderately, it was unfair on the part of the Investigating officer to do so. The learned special prosecutor submitted that there is no legal impediment in doing it. I have no quarrel about it. But this is not only a court of law but a court of justice also. As stated earlier, not only the court, but the Investigating Officer also has a duty to be fair and to conduct the investigation honestly. His attempt shall not be to get an order against the accused some how or other. The court expects that every investigating officer **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -11- will give a fair deal to the accused with whom he deals with. I am sorry to say that this has not happened in this case. I only hope that the Special Prosecutor will bring it to the notice of Investigating Officers in the State. 17. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners. 18. In the result the interim bail granted to the third accused is made absolute. The third accused shall furnish his contact numbers and the residential address so that the Investigating Officer may give him notice to appear before him to obtain his handwriting or thumb impression or signature. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for one hour from 3.00 p.m to 4.00 p.m on the 7th and 14th days after his release for that purpose. i. The 4[th] and 5[th] accused shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court concerned. ii. They shall not intimidate or attempt to **B** .A.No. 2161 of 2017, B.A.No.2488 of 2017 & B.A.No. 2602 of 2017 -12- influence the witnesses, nor shall they get themselves involved in any other criminal case. iii. They shall surrender their passports before the lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release. iv. They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court, as the case may be. v. The 4[th] accused shall appear before the investigating officer for one hour from 3 to 4 pm on the 7[th] and 14[th] days of his release. vi. The investigating officer is permitted to issue notice to the 5[th] accused to appear before him for interrogating for one hour on the 7[th] day of his release. In case of violation, the lower court concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law. The bail applications are disposed of as above. ## **Sd/-** ## **K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE** IAP // True Copy // P.A. to Judge