The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari while setting aside the Kerala High Court order that granted bail to a man accused murder of a lady doctor observed that seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications. [State of Kerala vs. Mahesh]
Fact of the case
The victim was a 30-year-old lady doctor who met the accused after divorce from her husband and thereby became close to the accused and they started living together from 2018 onwards.
Later on, the victim got pregnant but the accused threatened her and had to undergo an abortion. With the financial assistance of her father the victim opened a multi-speciality dental clinic. The accused started misappropriating the money from the clinic and also started harassing the victim both mentally and physically.
Thus the victim started living in her own house after her relationship strained with the accused. The accused kept on threatening the victim which eventually led to a complaint being filed against the accused on 26th September 2020 by the victim along with her father. However, the police settled the case at the Ollur Police Station itself after calling the accused.
On 28th September 2020, the accused stabbed the lady doctor in her clinic with a knife on the right side of her stomach thereby causing grievous internal injury and the only person who witnessed the murder was her father.
The accused was initially booked under sections 307, 324, 341 of IPC but after the victim succumbed to her injuries which led to her death even sections 302, 201, 212 of IPC were added.
The Kerela High Court had granted bail to a man who killed a lady doctor and absconded after the incident.
An appeal was filed in the supreme court against the bail granted by Kerela HC.
Contention of the Parties
Attacking the impugned order of the High Court, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant supported by Counsel appearing on behalf of the father of the victim, has argued that the Respondent Accused had committed the gruesome murder of a young woman in the presence of her father, who was an eye witness to the incident. The High Court should have declined the prayer for bail on that ground alone.
The impugned order granting bail to the Respondent Accused, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, is devoid of cogent
reasons, justifying the grant of bail to the accused. The High Court neither considered nor elaborate reasons given by Sessions Court in the order directing bail to the Accused Respondent.
It was submitted that restraining the Respondent Accused from entering the jurisdictional limit of Ullur Police Station till the investigation was over, would not prevent the Respondent Accused from influencing or threatening witnesses.
Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the bail application has been
allowed on stringent conditions. Counsel emphasized on the conditions imposed by the impugned order restraining the Respondent Accused from entering the jurisdictional limit of Ollur Police Station, till the main witnesses in the case were examined by the Trial Court. She also emphatically argued that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether there were supervening circumstances which
would render the bail no longer conducive to a fair trial.
The Respondent has admitted the incident but stated that “During the discussion, verbal altercation arose between the parents of the deceased and the defacto complainant who accompanied the deceased victim.
A scuffle took place and unfortunately the deceased victim had sustained injury. The Respondent had no intention or preparation
to commit any offence.”
On behalf of the Respondent Accused, it was argued that the impugned order of the High Court is well reasoned. The High Court found that the Respondent Accused was in custody from 6th October 2020 onwards. Indefinite incarceration of the Respondent Accused was found not necessary.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Seriousness of the charge is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications, the court added.
The bench observed,
" In this case, the impugned order of the High Court is flawed, in that the High Court noted the seriousness of the offence alleged, observed that the incident was heinous, but proceeded to grant bail to the Respondent Accused on the purported ground that he had been in custody since 6th October 2020 (that is, about 75 days) without even considering the materials on record which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent Accused had committed the heinous offence. At that stage, even the chargesheet had not been filed. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, or the fact that the accused had been absconding after the incident."
The bench also noted that the High Court did neither consider nor discuss the elaborate reasons given by the Sessions Court in its order rejecting the prayer of the Accused for bail.
It added,
"The impugned order of the High Court does not advert to any error in the reasoning of the Sessions Court. Nor is there any discussion of the reason why the High Court took a view different from that taken by the Sessions Court – whether there were any supervening circumstances within 10/12 days of the order of the Sessions Court, which necessitated a different view."
The court added,
"The High Court, in our opinion, clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the Respondent Accused not to enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. The High Court completely ignored the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and her five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eye witness is a resident of Ernakulam. Most of the Prosecution witnesses were from Thrissur. There was no reason to suppose that the witnesses would restrict their movements to the limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station."
The court also observed that the High Court completely misappreciated the object, scope and ambit of the directions issued in Re : Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons.
The bench said, "The orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even 23 before investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. The Respondent Accused, it is reiterated, is charged with murder in the presence of an eye witness, and the impugned order granting bail was filed even before the chargesheet was filed. The Chargesheet appears to have been filed on 01.01.2021. Moreover the Respondent Accused had been absconding after the incident."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
