Kerala High Court
Sajeesh @ Kuttan vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1220/2023 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.292 OF 2024 OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
SAJEESH @ KUTTAN,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN, KARAKKARAKULAM, PUTHANPATHA,
KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
678555
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
ADGP SRI GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE ,SR PP SRI C K SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
2
ORDER
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2024
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS'
for short), by the sole accused in Crime No.1220/2023
of the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, which is
registered against him for allegedly committing the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to
judicial custody on 07.11.2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; on
7.11.2023, at 6:45 hours, the accused who was the
husband of Urmila (deceased), had out of his previous
animosity towards her and on suspecting her chastity,
trespassed into her parental home and assaulted her on
her head and different parts of her body with an iron
rod with spiral end and she suffered fatal injuries. She
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
lost her life instantaneously. Thus, the accused has
committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently argued that the petitioner is innocent of the
accusations levelled against him. The marital
relationship between the petitioner and the deceased
was strained. By no stretch of imagination can the
offence under Section 302 of the IPC be attributed
against the petitioner. A reading of the First
Information Report and the charge sheet would reveal
that the incident occurred due to a sudden provocation.
The worst offence that can be alleged against the
petitioner is under Section 304 of the IPC. The
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last
nearly one year, the investigation in the case is
complete, recovery has been effected and the charge
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
sheet has been filed. There is no likelihood of the trial
in the case commencing in the near future. The
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
Therefore, the petitioner's further incarceration is
unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has
filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that
the petitioner has committed a heinous crime. It is also
contended that the petitioner had on an earlier
occasion i.e., on 11.6.2023 trespassed into the parental
home of the deceased and attacked her with a chopper,
and she suffered grievous injuries. Then, the Chittur
Police had registered Crime No.470/2023 against the
petitioner for committing the offences under Sections
498A, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on
5.7.2023 by the Court of Session, Palakkad, on the
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
specific undertaking that he would not get involved in
any other offence. Due to the petitioner's constant
harassment and torture of the deceased, she filed a
petition to dissolve her marriage with the petitioner
before the Family Court, Palakkad. It is out of this
animosity that the petitioner had again trespassed into
the parental home of the deceased and committed the
preplanned murder of the deceased. The sterling
witnesses in the crime are the two minor children of the
couple. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is
every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and
tampering with evidence. The learned Public
Prosecutor also made available the post mortem report
of the deceased to substantiate the brutal manner in
which the deceased was hacked to death. He stated
that the said report is more sufficient to establish the
heinous nature of the crime. Moreover, the
Investigating Officer has now filed an application to
cancel the bail order in Crl.M.C.No.2587/2023 due to
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
the petitioner's post bail conduct. The application is
meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that, on
7.11.2023, the petitioner had trespassed into the
parental home of the deceased and inflicted fatal
injuries on her, and she lost her life instantaneously.
7. On a perusal of the postmortem report dated
7.11.2023 of the Chief Forensic Surgeon of the District
Hospital, Palakkad, it can be deciphered that the
deceased had suffered 19 antemortem injuries. It is
certified that the deceased lost her life due to the
injuries 1 to 8 and the corresponding injury No.1.
8. When the application came up for
consideration on 21.10.2024, this court directed the
Court of Session, Palakkad, to forward a copy of the bail
order passed in favour of the petitioner in Crime
No.470/2023 of the Chittur Police Station, which is now
pending trial as S.C. No.292/2024.
9. Pursuant to the said order, the learned
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palakkad, has forwarded a
copy of the bail order in Crl.M.C. No.2587/2023.
10. On a perusal of the said order, it is seen that
on 11.6.2023, at around 14:30 hours, the petitioner had
allegedly trespassed into the house of the deceased and
chopped her, and she suffered serious injuries.
Consequently, Crime No.470/2023 was registered
against the petitioner for allegedly committing the
offences under Sections 498A, 452, 324 and 308 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on
13.6.2023. By order dated 5.7.2023 in Crl.M.C.
No.2587/2023, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on
the specific condition that he shall not get involved in
any offence while he is on bail.
10 Admittedly, it is during the pendency of trial
in Crime No.470/2023, that the petitioner again
allegedly trespassed into the house of the deceased and
murdered her.
11. The materials placed on record, prima facie,
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
substantiate that the petitioner has committed a very
heinous crime by murdering his wife, that too after he
made a similar attempt to murder her, and during the
pendency of Crime No.470/2023. As rightly pointed out
by the prosecution the sterling witnesses in the present
crime are the two minor children of the couple.
12. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Honourable Supreme
Court has held that at the stage of considering a bail
application, a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of merits of the case need not
be undertaken. The Courts are only expected to
indicate a prima facie conclusion why bail is refused or
granted to the accused. Similarly, it is also held that
the length of detention is not a ground to enlarge an
accused on bail, who is alleged to have committed a
serious offence.
13. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for
Courts while dealing with bail applications by holding
as follows :-
"9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent
upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point.
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;
(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
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail".
14. Likewise, in Gurucharan Singh and Ors.
v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118],
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
the Honourable Supreme Court has held that while
considering an application of bail, it is necessary to
consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the
character of the evidence, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the
presence of the accused not being secured at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public or the State, and
similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
15. It is also worth recollecting the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ash
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
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
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."
16. The law has thus crystalised that while
deciding an application for bail under Section 439, the
courts are obliged to look into the nature, gravity and
seriousness of the crime, the potential severity of the
punishment that is likely to be imposed, the character,
behaviour and standing of the accused, the
prosecution's legitimate apprehension regarding the
tampering of evidence, the flight risk that is involved
and whether releasing the accused on bail would have a
deleterious impact on the society.
On an overall consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the
materials placed on record, especially on
2024:KER:81104
BAIL APPL. NO. 8421 OF 2024
comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of
the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the
severity of the punishment that can be imposed on him
the prima facie materials that substantiate the
petitioner's involvement in the crime, the petitioner's
antecedents of earlier attempting to murder the
deceased, the reasonable apprehension projected by
the prosecution that the petitioner is likely to intimidate
the witnesses, and enlarging the petitioner on bail
would have a deleterious impact on the society, I am
not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to be
released on bail. The application is meritless and it is
only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS
rmm/1/11/2024 JUDGE
