Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20089
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
PRADEEP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 5495/2024
P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ, E.C.AHAMED FAZIL, SRI.C.K.SURESH, SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE
The court established that in bail applications, the seriousness of the offense and the accused's criminal history are critical factors influencing the decision.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439 - The court emphasized the necessity of considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the accused's criminal history, and the potential for witness tampering when deciding on bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was arrested for allegedly murdering the deceased by stabbing him multiple times due to previous animosity. The accused sought bail after being in custody for over seven months, claiming the investigation was complete.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in the crime, supported by a postmortem report detailing multiple stab wounds. The accused's history of serious offenses was also considered.
Issues: Whether the accused should be granted bail considering the severity of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature and seriousness of the crime, along with the accused's criminal history and the potential for witness intimidation, justified the denial of bail.
Final Decision: The application for bail is dismissed.
This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused in Crime No.1848/2023 of the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner had filed two similar applications before the Court of Session, Kollam, and the same were also dismissed by Annexures A4 and A5 orders. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.11.2023.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on
21.11.2023, at around 12:45 hours, the accused, due to his previous animosity towards one Thulaseedharan (deceased), indiscriminately stabbed the deceased on his abdomen with a knife and inflicted fatal injuries on him.
Accordingly, the deceased lost his life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than seven months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid.
Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception applies to the facts of the case. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in four other crimes for allegedly committing serious offences. In the instant case, the petitioner has brutally murdered the deceased by indiscriminately stabbing the deceased multiple times on his abdomen. Merely, because the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last eight months is not a ground to enlarge him on bail in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528] . If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution case is that on 21.11.2023, the petitioner had indiscriminately stabbed the deceased on his abdomen multiple times and murdered the deceased.
The postmortem certificate dated 22.11.2023 clearly demonstrates the 15 antemortem injuries suffered by the deceased. The said certificate along with the other materials on record prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in the crime, though that is a matter to be ultimately decided at the time of trial. In addition to the same, it is seen that the petitioner is involved as accused in Crime Nos.2323/2013, 1584/2014, 1229/2020 and 129/2020 of the Karunagappally Police Station and Crime No.1693/2020 of the Ochira Police Station. Crime Nos.1229/2020 and 1693/2020 are registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing a serious offence under Section 308 of the IPC. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner is a habitual offender.
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 reason
