Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40427
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
SIDHARTHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 7961/2024
NIREESH MATHEW
The court emphasized that bail applications must consider the nature of the crime, potential witness tampering, and societal impact, prioritizing public safety over individual liberty.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 118(2), 117(2), 105 and Sec.3(5) - Bail application - Accused involved in a fatal assault leading to death - The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting no direct involvement in the crime, while the prosecution alleged joint assault with fatal consequences. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Courts must evaluate the nature and gravity of the accusation, potential punishment, risk of absconding, and likelihood of witness tampering. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for allegedly participating in a fatal assault on the deceased, following a scuffle. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was involved in the assault alongside another accused. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the crime and noted the potential risk of witness intimidation and societal impact if bail were granted. (Paras 6, 11)
Issues: The main issues included the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the assault and the implications of granting bail considering the severity of the accusations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of the nature and seriousness of the crime, the potential for witness tampering, and the societal impact of releasing the accused on bail. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, by the second accused in Crime No.749/2024 of the Aloor Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against two accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 118 (2), 117(2) and 105 read with Sec.3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 18.9.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 15.9.2024, at around noon, the second accused and a person named Joby (deceased) had a scuffle in front of a toddy shop. At that time, the first accused who passed by on his scooter, intervened in the matter and then he caught hold of the deceased’s shoulder and pushed him on the ground. Then the accused 1 and 2 brutally assaulted the deceased who succumbed to the fatal injuries on 16.9.2024. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the first information report as well as the remand application substantiates that it was the first accused who committed the above offences. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was in the company of the first accused. In any given case, the offence under Sec.105 cannot be attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 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 there is a specific overt act attributed against the petitioner, who along with the first accused had brutally assaulted the deceased, which led to his death. She stated that it was the petitioner and the deceased who initially had an altercation with the deceased. Subsequently, the first accused joined the petitioner and then they jointly assaulted the deceased. She made available the postmortem certificate of the deceased to substantiate the fatal injuries suffered by him. She stated that the investigation in the case is only at its preliminary stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence.
Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner along with the first accused had brutally assaulted the deceased, who lost his life on 16.9.2024 due to the fatal injuries. On a careful analysis of the materials placed on record, I prima facie find the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. However, that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial.
7. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable 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
