RAJKUMAR @ RAJU @ ANIRUDHAN v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1938 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.90/2021 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.418 OF 2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` RAJKUMAR @ RAJU @ ANIRUDHAN AGED 42 YEARS PERUMPARAIL HOUSE, EZHALLUR, KUMARAMANGALAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685582 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RAMESH .P BLEIMY T.JOSE JINU SAMYUKTHA PADMAKUMAR GLORY JESSY SAMUEL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE - ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) SRI. C. K. SURESH - ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024 ``` **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1938 OF 2024** **------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the sole accused in Crime No.90/2021 of the Adimaly Police Station, Idukki, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2021. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: the accused, who is a native of Odisha, had got acquainted with the deceased named, Gopi. The accused used to frequently visit the house of the deceased. On 06.03.2021, the accused had visited the ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** house of the deceased and stayed over night. At night, the accused hit the deceased on his head with a hammer and caused fatal injuries to the deceased. The accused also committed the theft of the gold ornaments and money of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused washed away the blood stains and destroyed the evidence, and fleed from the scene of occurrence. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Ramesh P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. K. Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor. 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. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. In any given case, the petitioner has ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** been in judicial custody since 13.03.2021, which is more than two years, that the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner hails from the State of Odisha. After the crime, the petitioner had absconded from the place of occurrence. It is with great difficulty that the petitioner was traced out from the State of Odisha and arrested from their on 13.03.2021. Since the petitioner has no roots in the State of Kerala, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Moreover, the case has been committed to the jurisdictional court and is scheduled for trial to ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** 22.04.2024. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he would certainly sabotage the trial and intimidate the witnesses. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.** [AIR 2004 SC 1866] that merely because an accused is undergoing incarceration for a particular period of time and that the trial is not likely to commence in the near future, is not a ground to enlarge an accused on bail. Hence, he prayed, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he has committed the murder of the deceased and the theft of gold ornaments and money of the deceased. After committing the murder, the accused also attempted to destroy the evidence. 7. The petitioner had filed a similar application under Section 439 of the Code before the Court of ``` 6 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024 ``` Session, Thodupuzha as Crl.M.C. No.781/2023. By Annexure A1 order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application on being prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient materials to believe that the petitioner has committed the crime and there is every possibility of him fleeing from the State. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a native of Odisha. In **Hussainara Kahtoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar** , [1980 (1) SCC 81], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be considered by the Courts, while dealing with the question of roots of an accused in the community. It is held that the length of person’s residence in the community, his family types and relationship, his identity as a responsible person are the factors that needs to be considered while considering the roots of a person in the society. 9. In the case on hand, it is evident that the ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** petitioner does not satisfy any of the above said conditions. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime by committing the murder of the deceased. 10. It cannot be gainsaid that the exceptional power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code is wide-ranging and discretionary, and the power is to be exercised judiciously. 11. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.** [(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; ``` 8 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024 ``` 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.” 12. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav** (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate 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 evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. ``` 9 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024 ``` 13. 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. 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.” 14. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash** ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024 ``` ## **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.” 15. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and the proclamation of the law in the ``` 11 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** above said decisions, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, and the further fact that the trial in the case has been scheduled to 22.04.2024, the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that there is every likelihood of petitioner fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence, notwithstanding the fact the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.03.2021, I am not convinced and satisfied that the petitioner is to be released on bail at this stage, as it would have a deleterious impact on the society and the justice would be thwarted. Hence, I hold that the application is only to be rejected. In the result, the application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 12 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1938 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1938/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C. NO. 781/2023 IN S.C. NO. 418/2021 OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 07/10/2023 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL`**