Praveesh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.930/2023 OF Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur ``` ``` --------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-`** ``` PRAVEESH, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.PRADEEP, KOTTEKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHAZHUR PARAKULANGARA TEMPLE, CHAZHUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 571 ``` ## **`BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN`** ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE :-`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, ANTHIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 641`** ``` BY SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 24th day of Ju ly, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.930/2023 of the Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; on 09.04.2023, at around 20:00 hrs., the accused wrongfully restrained his wife (de facto complainant) and hit her with a wooden reed and she suffered grievous injuries including a fracture of her left hand. The accused also caused physical torture to his three year old daughter by dropping ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` her down on to the ground. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offences. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 326 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 11 months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, _inter alia_ , contending that the petitioner ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` is an inveterate offender since he is involved in 11 other crimes of a serious nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him murdering his wife and child and also tampering with the evidence. It was taking into consideration these aspects that the trial court has dismissed the petitioner's three applications for bail. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the trial in the case itself can be expedited. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; he wrongfully restrained his wife and child and caused grievous injuries to them. The said accusation _prima facie_ stands corroborated by the treatment records submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, that is a matter to be ultimately decided after trial. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` ## 7. On a perusal of the bail objection report, it is seen that the petitioner is an accused in the following ## crimes :- - "01. Cr. 1611/2023 u/s 448, 341, 294(b), 323, 34 IPC of Anthikkad Police Station. 02. Cr. 313/2018 u/s 451, 341, 323, 324, 34 IPC & SC/ST Act of Anthikkad P.S. 03. Cr. 581/2018 u/s 118(a) of KP Act of Valappad Police Station. 04. Cr. 315/2019 u/s 118(a) of KP Act of Anthikkad Police Station. 05. Cr. 1186/2020 u/s 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, 363, 308, 34 IPC of Anthikkad P.S. 06. Cr. 236/2021 u/s 448, 427, 34 IPC of Anthikkad Police Station. 07. Cr. 117/2022 u/s 448, 294(b), 354 IPC of Anthikkad Police Station. 08. Cr. 115/2022 u/s 151 Cr.PC of Anthikkad Police Station. 09. Cr. 264/2022 u/s 118(a) of KP Act of Anthikkad Police Station. 10. Cr. 760/2022 u/s 118(a) of KP Act of Anthikkad Police Station. 11. Cr. 665/23 u/s 324, 326A, 307 IPC." 8. A reading of the above statistics reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender of having committed serious offences. Therefore, the apprehension projected by the prosecution, that the petitioner may do away with ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` his wife and child if he is enlarged on bail, is found to be justifiable and reasonable. 9. When the application came up for consideration on 12.07.2024, this Court had called for a report from the trial court to ascertain the status and the reasonable time period that would be required to dispose of S.C. No.1213/2023. 10. Pursuant to the said order, the learned trial court Judge, by communication dated 17.07.2024, has informed this Court that even though the prosecution has cited 17 witnesses, the trial court would make an endeavour to dispose of S.C. No.1213/2023 within four months. 11. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar** v. **Ashis Chatterjee** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the following broad parameters while considering a bail application, namely: “9…………………..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. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` 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 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”. ## 12. Likewise, in **Gurucharan Singh Others** v. **State** **(Delhi Administration)** [(1978) 1 SCC 118], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the larger interests of the public must be considered when considering an application for bail. 13. Furthermore, in **Ash Mohammad** v. **Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Another** [(2012) 9 SCC 446], the Honourable Supreme Court has opined that societal concern has to be kept in juxtaposition with individual liberty, and social concern deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` 14. 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 the crime, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed, the character, behaviour and standing of the accused, the prosecution’s legitimate apprehension regarding the tampering of evidence, the flight risk of the accused and whether releasing the accused on bail would have a deleterious impact on the society. On an overall consideration of 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 levelled against the petitioner, the _prima facie_ materials that substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime, that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may murder his wife and child, and further that the petitioner ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` may tamper with the evidence, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made any convincing ground to enlarge him on bail. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the application. However, considering the communication of the trial court Judge, I direct the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thrissur, to consider and dispose of S.C. No.1213/2023 within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the court below. **Sd/C.S. DIAS, JUDGE** Jvt/24.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.4424 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 10 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.4424/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** - **`Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.930 OF 2023 DATED 07-08-2023`** - **`Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-10-2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR`** - **`Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-02-2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1047 OF 2024 IN S.C.NO.1213 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THRISSUR`** - **`Annexure 4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-04-2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.2843 OF 2024 IN S.C.NO.1213 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR`**