Rajeev vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10070 Ker

B. A. No. 7747/2023

                                  ..1..



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 7747 OF 2023
   CRIME NO. 948/2023 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


            RAJEEV, AGED 35 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
            KAMBILINE BHAGOM, VALARA KARA, MANNAMKANDAM
            VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685561.

            BY ADVS.M/S.MEGHA BIJU, MALAVIKA MARY THOMAS &
            GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J.


RESPONDENT/STATE:

            STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
            PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.

            SMT.T.V.NEEMA,SR PP


       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B. A. No. 7747/2023

                                   ..2..



                      MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.

                   =========================
                          B. A. No. 7747 of 2023
                   =========================
                Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023


                               ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure seeking regular bail. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.

948/2023 of Adimali Police Station for having committed offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324 & 306 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 30.7.2023, the defacto complainant's

daughter - Sreedevi, aged 27 years (residing with her child aged 2 years

and one Rajeev, in a rented house near Priyadarshini Colony,

Polinjapalam, Mannamkandam Village, Adimaly Kara) was taken to

Adimali Taluk Headquarters Hospital and later, she died on the same day

(30.7.2023) at 4.20 P.M. It is alleged that the deceased Sreedevi

committed suicide due to the physical and mental torture committed by

the accused. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the B. A. No. 7747/2023

..3..

offences mentioned above.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior

motives. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in order to

constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally

aided the commission of the crime. A mere proof that the crime could not

have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is

not enough. In elaboration, it is argued that in a case of alleged abetment

of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to

the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time of

occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person

to commit suicide, an accusation cannot be maintained. For the above

proposition, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in CBI v. C. Shukla [AIR 1998 SC 1406], Sia Ram v.

State of U.P. [AIR 1975 SC 175], Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal

[(2010) 1 SCC 707], S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12

SCC 190] M. Arjunan v. State (represented by its Inspector of Police) B. A. No. 7747/2023

..4..

[(2019) 3 SCC 315], Rajesh v. State of Haryana [(2019) SCC Online SC

44] and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 200]. At any

rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 1.8.2023, and the

continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and points out that

the petitioner is not entitled to get bail.

5. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, exfacie, I find considerable

force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even

the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the fact that the

petitioner has been in custody since 1.8.2023 and also since the

prosecution has raised no apprehension that if he is released on bail, the

petitioner is likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the

petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is

granted bail, subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for B. A. No. 7747/2023

..5..

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and

when required to do so.

3. The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the

evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

4. The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on

bail.

If any of the conditions are violated, the jurisdictional court concerned

shall be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE

MMG B. A. No. 7747/2023

..6..

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7747/2023

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE 1             A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED
                       IN    C.M.P  NO.   4067/2023   DATED
                       10.08.2023