Sharmila Ravikumar v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2017/26TH VAISAKHA, 1939** **Crl.MC.No. 3378 of 2017 () --------------------------CR.M.P. 2771/2016 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM CRIME NO. 1810/2016 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ----** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------** **SHARMILA RAVIKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.RAJEEV, KRISHNA KRIPA, NEAR PWD REST HOUSE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 514.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER: ------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686003 (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031)** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-05-2017, ALONG WITH CR.MC.3385/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKG** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3378 of 2017 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.1.2017 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2771 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.2.2017 IN BA NO. 296 OF 2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RULING IN SUKHVANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB REPORTED IN (2009) 7 SCC 559. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RULING THE MUKESH KISHANPURIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPORTED IN (2010) 5 JT 397. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **SKG** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **--------------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017** **-----------------------------------------** Dated this the 16th day of May, 2017 ## **ORDER** The prayers in Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017 are as follows. - _(i) Direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -III, Kottayam, Kottayam district to consider the application for interim bail filed by the petitioner along with his application for regular bail in Crime No.1810 of 2016 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam District, on the date of filing the application itself, in the event of the application for regular bail being adjourned by the Court for the purpose of hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor or for perusal of case diary to any other date._ - _(ii) Grant two week's time to the petitioner to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam in Crime No.1810 of 2016 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam District, and to apply for regular bail and interim bail during the interregnum of consideration of the application for regular bail_ - _(iii) Direct the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1810 of 2016 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam District to allow presence of the petitioner's lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the said Crime either during judicial custody, police custody or otherwise._ - _(iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case._ ## The prayers in Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017 are as follows. _1.Direct the JFCM Court -I,Changanassery, Kottayam district to consider the application for interim bail filed by the petitioners along with his application for regular bail in Crime No.499 of 2017 of Chingavanam Police Station,_ Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 2 _Kottayam District, on the date of filing the application itself, in the event of the application for regular bail being adjourned by the Court for the purpose of hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor or for perusal of case diary to any other date, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in_ _**Sukvant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2009)7 SCC 559(Annex.A-5) and Mukesh Kishanpuria vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010)5 JT 397 (Annex.A-6)**_ _2. Grant one month's time to the petitioners to surrender before the JFCM Court -I,Changanassery, Kottayam district in Crime No.499 of 2017 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam district and to apply for regular bail and to apply for grant of interim bail during the interregnum of consideration of the application for regular bail_ _3. Direct the Investigating Officer in Crime No.499 of 2017 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam District to allow presence of the petitioner's lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the said Crime either during judicial custody, police custody or otherwise._ _4. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case._ ## The prayers in Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 are as follows. _1.Direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Alappuzha to consider the application for interim bail filed by the petitioner along with his application for regular bail in Crime No.875 of 2015 on the files of the Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha District, on the date of filing the application itself, in the event of the application for regular bail being adjourned by the Court for the purpose of hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor or for perusal of case diary to any other date._ _2. Grant one month's time to the petitioner to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Alappuzha in Crime No.875 of 2015 on the files of the Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha District and to apply for regular bail and interim bail during the interregnum of consideration of the application for regular bail_ _3. Direct the Investigating Officer in Crime No.875 of_ Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 3 _2015 on the files of the Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha District to allow presence of the petitioner's lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the said Crime either during judicial custody, police custody or otherwise._ _4. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case._ ## The prayers in Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 are as follows. _1.Direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Aluva, Ernakulam district to consider the application for interim bail filed by the petitioner along with his application for regular bail in Crime No.1025 of 2011 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam District, on the date of filing the application itself, in the event of the application for regular bail being adjourned by the Court for the purpose of hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor or for perusal of case diary to any other date, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in_ _**Sukvant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2009)7 SCC 559(Annex.A-5) and Mukesh Kishanpuria vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010)5 JT 397 (Annex.A-6)**_ _2. Grant one month's time to the petitioner to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Aluva, Ernakulam in Crime No.1025 of 2011 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam district and to apply for regular bail and interim bail during the interregnum of consideration of the application for regular bail_ _3. Direct the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1025 of 2011 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam District to allow presence of the petitioner's lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the said Crime either during judicial custody, police custody or otherwise._ _4. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case._ ## 2. Heard Sri.C.S.Manu learned Counsel appearing for Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 4 the petitioner in these 4 cases and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State or Authorities concerned. Sri.C.S.Manu learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on Annexure A3 and A4 judgments of the Apex court in **Sukhvant Singh vs. State of Punjab** reported in **2009(7) SCC 559 and Mukesh Kishanpuria vs. State of West Bengal** reported in **2010** ## **(5) JT 397.** ## 3. The order in Annexure A3 reads as follows: _Heard learned counsel for the petitioners._ _This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.3.2009 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, following the decision of this Court in the case of Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P & Ors. 2009(4) SCALE, 77, we reiterate that a Court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. JT 2008(11)SC 609._ Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 5 _Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly there._ _In the present case, if the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned and makes a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application, the same shall be considered and decided on the same day._ _With the above said observations, the petition stands disposed_ _of._ ## 4. The order in Annexure A4 reads as follows: _Heard learned counsel for the petitioner._ _2. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta whereby the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been rejected._ _3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also perused the record. We also see no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner._ _4. However, the petitioner may apply for regular bail before the Court concerned and along with the said application, he may file an application for interim bail pending disposal of the regular bail application. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent._ _5. Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final disposal of the regular bail application._ _6. We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order._ _7. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms._ Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 6 5. On a perusal of the above said judgments of the Supreme Court it is seen that in those cases also the applications for anticipatory bail submitted by the respective applicants were earlier rejected by the High Court and thereafter that the Apex court had given the above said directions. In the instant case also, the application for anticipatory bail submission by respective petitioners had already been rejected by this Court. 6. The Apex court has clearly laid down therein that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power for the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application and of course it is only within the discretion of the court concerned to decide whether or not to grant such interim bail but such power is certainly vested with the bail court concerned. 7. Instead of burdening the criminal court to take decision both on the main bail application as well as on the Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 7 interim bail application it is ordered in the interest of justice that it is for the respective petitioners in these cases to voluntarily surrender before the criminal court concerned and submit necessary application for grant of regular bail and in case the petitioners serve advance copy of those application for regular bail to the learned Prosecutor appearing before the court below at least two days prior to the surrender before the court, then the criminal court concerned shall consider those bail applications on the same day itself and should pass necessary orders thereon on the same day after granting reasonable opportunity to be heard to the petitioner's counsel as well as to the respective learned Public Prosecutor appearing in these cases. It is ordered further in the interest of justice that if due to any contingencies the criminal court is having difficulties to pass orders on the regular bail applications on the same day itself, then the petitioners will be at liberty to submit necessary application for interim bail and Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 8 advance copies of such interim bail applications should also be served to the respective prosecutor concerned as directed above and such application for interim bail shall be considered by the criminal court on the same day itself and necessary orders passed thereon. As already ordered by the Apex court in the above said judgments it is made clear that it is fully within the domain of the criminal court concerned to decide whether or not to grant bail or interim bail as the case may be in these cases and nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the part of this court on the merits of this case and all the matters relating to the merits of the matter in relation to the issues regarding the grant of bail are fully within the exclusive province of the trial court. Necessary decisions shall be taken by the criminal court after obtaining views of the learned Public Prosecutor concerned. With these observations and directions the above Crl.M.C.No.3378 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3385 of 2017, Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2017 & Crl.M.C.No.3394 of 2017 9 mentioned Crl.M.Cs stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge IAP