Successive Bail Plea Denied in SC/ST Act Murder Case: No Change in Circumstances, Kerala HC Rules (S.302 IPC, S.3(2)(v) SC/ST Act)

Kerala High Court Denies Bail Again in SC/ST Act Murder Case, Cites No Change in Circumstances

Kochi , Kerala: The High Court of Kerala, presided over by Justice K. Babu , has dismissed a criminal appeal (CRL.A 1103/2024) filed by Noushid P. A. , an accused in a brutal murder case involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny him regular bail, emphasizing that successive bail applications cannot be entertained without a significant change in circumstances.

Case Background: Allegations of Murder and Atrocity

The appellant, Noushid P. A. , is accused in Crime No.1891 of 2023 of Town North Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges that Noushid committed offences punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, Reshma , belonged to a Scheduled Caste. She and Noushid , who belongs to the Muslim community, developed an acquaintance through social media in 2019. The appellant allegedly promised to marry Reshma , and they lived together as husband and wife, during which time she was subjected to sexual intercourse based on this promise. Reshma later resided in a hostel under Noushid 's guardianship.

The prosecution claims Noushid attempted to retract his marriage offer, suspecting Reshma 's intimacy with one of his friends and believing she spread derogatory statements about him. Allegedly, driven by this enmity, on August 9, 2023, Noushid took Reshma to his residential room at Kaippally Apartment Hotel, Kaloor. There, he allegedly questioned her intimidatingly, videographed the interaction, and subsequently murdered her by stabbing her multiple times with a sharp-edged knife.

Repeated Bail Attempts and Court's Stance

This was not Noushid 's first attempt to secure bail. 1. His initial bail application (Crl.MP No.5104 of 2023) was dismissed by the trial court. 2. An appeal against this dismissal (Crl.A.No.1939 of 2023) was rejected by the High Court on February 6, 2024. 3. Subsequently, Noushid filed another bail application (Crl.M.P.No.1822 of 2024) before the trial court, which was again dismissed on June 15, 2024. The current appeal challenged this latest trial court order.

Notice of the current appeal was served on the victim's father, but he did not appear in court.

Arguments and Legal Principles

The appellant's counsel argued for bail, submitting that the trial might be prolonged as the prosecution had not yet obtained the FSL analysis report for some material objects.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in * Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav ( AIR 2005 SC 921 )* and other precedents, the prosecutor contended that a second bail application is not maintainable without a material change in the fact situation or law.

The High Court, in its judgment, extensively quoted its reasoning from the previous dismissal of Noushid 's bail appeal. The key factors previously considered included: * The appellant's criminal antecedents. * Apprehensions raised by the victim's father regarding their safety if the accused was released. * The brutal nature of the alleged offence. * Concerns from the Investigating Officer about potential witness tampering, threats to the victim's family, the appellant absconding, or repeating similar offences.

The court reiterated established legal principles: > "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 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."

The court also emphasized the need to balance the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 with the atrocious nature of the offence.

No Change in Circumstances Warranting Bail

Justice K. Babu , after reviewing the materials, found no change in the circumstances from when the previous bail applications were considered and rejected. The court cited the Supreme Court's stance in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar , which held: > “The findings of a higher court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier... even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete.”

Further referencing * G.R.Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2021) SCC Online SC 176 ]*, the court noted that any pleaded change in circumstance for a subsequent bail application "shall not be specious but real and genuine."

The court found that the appellant's argument regarding potential trial delay due to a pending FSL report did not constitute a "real and genuine" change in circumstances warranting a departure from previous decisions.

Final Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Concluding that no new circumstances had emerged to justify a different outcome, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The order dated June 15, 2024, by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA Act) Cases, Ernakulam, denying bail to Noushid P. A. , was confirmed.

This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to granting bail in heinous crimes, especially when previous applications have been rejected on merit and no substantial new grounds are presented. The appellant will remain in custody pending trial.