Noushid P. A vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 4422 Ker

Kerala High Court

Noushid P. A vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024

Author: K.Babu

Bench: K. Babu

CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023
                                 1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
   TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                       CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023
    CRIME NO.1891/2023 OF Ernakulam North Police Station,
                             Ernakulam
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1688/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                     SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT:

             NOUSHID P. A.
             AGED 31 YEARS
             S/O. MUHAMMAD, THOTTIL - HOUSE, THALAYAD
             -POST/VILLAGE, KOYILANDY - TALUK, KOZHIKKODE -
             DISTRICT, PIN - 673574
             BY ADVS.
             BIJU ANTONY ALOOR
             HARITHA HARIHARAN
             AILIN ELEZABATH MATHEW
             K.P.PRASANTH
             ARCHANA SURESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1        STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2        THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
             CENTRAL SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 682018
    3        RAVI CK
             AGED 52 YEARS
             S/O. KARUTHAKUNJU, CHIRAMELIL-HOUSE, VALINMELCHIRA-
             DESOM, VAZHAPPALLY KIZHAKKU-VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY-
             TALUK, KOTTAYAM-DISTRICT, PIN - 686103
     G.SUDHEER, PP
 CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023
                                  2

     THIS   CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023
                                     3

                             K.BABU, J.
                   --------------------------------------
                    Crl.A. No.1939 of 2023
                 ---------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. The appellant is the accused in Crime No.1891 of 2023 of

Town North Police Station, Ernakulam. He is alleged to have

committed offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC

and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution case:

2. The deceased Reshma, the victim belongs to

Scheduled Caste. The appellant belongs to the Muslim

community. The appellant and the victim developed an

acquaintance through social media in 2019. The appellant

promised the victim to marry her. They lived together as

husband and wife. On account of the promise of marriage, she CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant. The

deceased started to reside in a hostel at Kaloor under the

guardianship of the appellant. The appellant attempted to

withdraw from the offer to marry her. He developed an

impression that the victim had intimacy with one of his friends

Akhilan. He also believed that the deceased spread some

derogatory statements against him. On account of this enmity

to commit murder of the victim, who belongs to Scheduled

Caste, the appellant took her on 09.08.2023 to his residential

room situated at Kaippally Apartment Hotel, Kaloor. He

questioned her in an intimidating manner and the same was

videographed. On that day, at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant

committed murder of the victim by stabbing various parts of

her body using a sharp-edged knife.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that,

as the investigation is over, further detention of the appellant is

not required. The learned counsel relied on Prabhakar Tewari v.

CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 11 SCC 648], Sumitra V. State

of Maharashtra [2018 SCC 1550], Ajmal V. State of Kerala

[92022) 9 SCC 766] and Dataram Singh V. State of Uttar

Pradesh, Ors [AIR 2018 SC 980], in support of his contention

that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. He also

submitted that the prosecution failed to produce material to

establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application

seeking release of the appellant on bail. The learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged against the

appellant are very grave. It is submitted that the release of

the appellant, who has criminal antecedents, would lead to a

circumstance where he may threaten the witnesses and the

relatives of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the appellant is accused in Crime No.327 of

2021 of Aluva West Police Station, in which the offence alleged

is punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

6. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the facts

and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to

be taken into consideration while dealing with application for

bail:

(i) The nature of the accusation and the severity

of the punishment in the case of conviction and

the nature of the materials relied upon by the

prosecution;

(ii) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with

the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the

complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) Reasonable possibility of securing the presence

of the accused at the time of trial or the

likelihood of his fleeing from justice;

(iv) Character, behaviour and standing of the

accused and the circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused;

(v) Larger interest of the public or the State and

similar other considerations.

CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

7. There is no hard and fast rule regarding granting or

refusing bail. Each case has to be considered on the relevant

facts and circumstances and on its own merits. The discretion

of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an

arbitrary manner.

8. I have perused the Case Diary and the report

submitted by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that there is every possibility that the

injuries were self-inflicted. The post-mortem report shows 25

antemortem injuries. The doctor who conducted the post-

mortem has opinioned that the cause of death was due to

incised wounds sustained to the neck.

9. The court below relied on the following circumstances

to reject the application seeking bail:-

a) The appellant/petitioner has criminal antecedents.

b) The defacto complainant, the father of the victim,

appeared before the court and raised the

apprehension that if bail is granted, the accused

will chase them to wreck vengeance, and their CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

safety will be in danger.

c) The offence alleged is very brutal.

10. The Investigating Officer submitted a report wherein

the following concerns were raised:-

i) If the appellant is released on bail, there is every

possibility that he will threaten the witnesses

and tamper with the evidence.

ii) The defacto complainant and the relatives of the

victim face persistent threats from the appellant

and his friends.

iii) The appellant has criminal antecedents.

iv) There is a possibility that the appellant will

abscond.

v) There is a further possibility that he may repeat

similar offences.

11. In serious offences, the courts should not lightly

entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case.

Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the

confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in

offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the

exception and not the rule.

12. While the court cannot ignore the fundamental right

of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot

shut its eyes totally to the atrocious nature of the offence

committed. Ultimately, it is a question of harmonizing the two

situations and finding the course to be adopted to see that

justice is done to both parties.

13. I have gone through the relevant materials. The

appellant is alleged to have committed a heinous offence. The

prosecution has established a prima facie case. The prosecution

has very serious apprehension that the release of the appellant

will lead to threatening of the witnesses and tampering with the

evidence. It is further brought to the notice of the court that

the safety of the defacto complainant, who is the father of the

victim, will be in peril if the appellant is released on bail.

Having considered the entire circumstance, I am of the

view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

The criminal appeal lacks merits, and it stands dismissed. The

trial court is directed to conduct an expeditious trial of the

matter.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE saap CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 FREE COPY OF THE ORDER CRL.M.P NO.

5104/2023 DATED 28/11/2023 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CHARGE SHEET S.C NO. 1688/2023 DATED NIL

//True copy// PA to Judge