Satheesan Nair @ Sathi v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943** **BAIL APPL. NO. 6913 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1565/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS** **COURT-I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **CRIME NO.958/2021 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SATHEESAN NAIR @ SATHI AGED 59 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, SREEVALSAM VEEDU, PANAKKAL NETTA, VALLIKODE, MANAKKODE WARD, NEDUMANGAD, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.** **BY ADVS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **ADDL PP .P. NARAYANAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 2 ## **ORDER** 1. Petitioner is the accused in crime No.958/2021 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Section 498(A) and 302 IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that accused had been subjecting the defacto complainant to cruelty, who is none other than his wife, alleging that he is not getting any financial aid from her house and also threatened to do away with her on several occasions when she wanted to go her house to see the mother and relatives. On 29.04.2021 accused made some commotion in the house and attacked the defacto complainant and subsequently the matter was settled. Thereafter on 30.04.2021 at about 10 a.m the petitioner was asked to report to the police station and out of enmity towards the defacto complainant in intimating the family issues to the police and also due to hearing the talk of the defacto complainant with CW14 over phone he had an intention to do away with the defacto complainant. With B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 3 that intention he arranged a chopper from CW17 and concealed it below the table in the dining room. Thereafter on 30.04.2021 at about 9.30 a.m he sent CWs 7 and 8 forcefully along with CW12 and at about 9.45 a.m while the defacto complainant was ready to go to the police station he purposefully quarreled with her and thereafter intentionally slashed her with a chopper repeatedly at her head and neck and several others parts of the body and inflicted deep cut injuries and thereby intentionally caused the death of his wife. Thereby, accused committed the offence aforementioned. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had been under confinement from 03.05.2021 onwards. Hence the continued confinement of the petitioner is not at all warranted. Counsel also would contend about the delay in conducting the trial and the necessity in such cases to release the accused persons on bail. He drew my attention to State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784]. Paragraph No.15 was highlighted by him, which reads thus: - “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 4 - several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel `A Tale of Two Cities', who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.” 4. It is to be noted that that was a case in which the accused was charged under Sections 10, 3 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. So the fact situation of that case is entirely different from the present case. Learned counsel further took my attention to Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I. Through Director [Crl.Appeal No.929/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)No5234/2021)]. But that was a matter with respect to grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contend about the brutal act of murder committed by the petitioner on his own wife. Prosecutor also highlighted the preparation for murder by purchasing a chopper and also B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 5 sending two children from the house on that particular day. The learned Public Prosecutor further brought to my attention the postmortem report of the deceased which is enclosed in page Nos.73 and 74 of the file. 6. On a mere glance through the postmortem certificate it could be seen that there are 22 antemortem injuries; almost all the injuries are incised cut injuries except two contusions. The doctor also has categorically opined that death was due to injuries sustained to head. On a mere glance through the postmortem certificate, prima facie it would reveal the brutal act of the accused in inflicting such deep cut injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, who is none other than his wife. In such circumstances long confinement in prison is not a reason to consider the application for bail of such accused persons. 7. In this context, the learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the relevant factors to be considered while granting bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 21 was highlighted by the learned Prosecutor, B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 6 ## which reads as follows: “21. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period of 3½ years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors referred to hereinabove in this judgment of ours.” 8. The learned Public Prosecutor also drew my attention to Virupakshappa Gouda and Another v. State of Karnataka and Anr. [2017 KHC 6239]. Paragraphs 13 and 14 was highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor, which read thus: “13. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the chargesheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 7 travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge. He has been swayed by the observations made in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), especially in paragraph 86, the relevant part of which reads thus:- “The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-avis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court.” 14. The proposition expounded above, has to be accepted, but that has to be applied appositely to the facts of each case. A bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on the ground that the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. ......” 9. In the above case, the question whether filing of charge sheet is a relevant factor to consider the application for bail was dealt with in detail. It is also relevant in this context to quote Masroor v. State of U.P. [(2009) 14 SCC 286]) wherein while dealing with 439 Cr.P.C., Apex Court categorically held that liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 8 valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. It is also held that while considering bail application the court has to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner with care and caution and not as a matter of course. The order must show the consideration of factors, like nature of offence, the evidence collected by the prosecution and forming part of the charge sheet and the circumstances under which the offences were committed. 10. In the present case, it has come out prima facie that the petitioner has nurtured enmity against his wife and made preparation for committing the act by purchase of a chopper and sending the two children away from the house and thereafter purposefully made a quarrel with her and done this brutal act by inflicting 21 cut injuries upon her on vital parts. In view of the prima facie materials collected from the side of the prosecution and the grievous nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and that too against his own wife and mother of two children, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail taking into account the period of confinement from B.A.No.6913 OF 2021 9 ## 03.05.2021, which has already undergone by him. 11. In the result, the Bail Application is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. shg **Sd/JUDGE** **M.R.ANITHA**