The High Court of Kerala dismissed the bail application. The appellant, accused of setting two persons on fire, sought release. The Court noted the grave nature of the crime and bad antecedents, but directed the Sessions Judge to expedite the trial.
No relief granted; application dismissed and trial directed to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 2389 of 2019
AGAINST SC NO.737/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT
CRIME NO. 183/2018 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BINEETH @ KARIMANI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OMBATHUNGAL DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.POLLY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:2389/2019
2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
BA:2389/2019
3
Referring to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (3) SCC 22], it was submitted that though the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously, in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the severity of the allegations, submits the learned counsel. He would also place heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784] and it is argued that when under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. The long period of detention undergone by the applicant is highlighted by the learned counsel to persuade this Court to release him on stringent conditions.
BA:2389/2019
4
considering application for grant of bail, the antecedents of the applicant will also have to be considered. After considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, this Court had dismissed his earlier application and had directed him to approach the court below if the trial is unduly delayed. There is no reason to take a different view now as there are no change in circumstances, contends the learned Public Prosecutor.
“The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the
BA:2389/2019
5
words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
The very same principles were reiterated in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] as well.
BA:2389/2019
6
It is made clear that any opinion expressed above shall not be treated
as an expression on the merits of the case.
This application is disposed of as above.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
KRJ
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused who is an undertrial prisoner in a serious case involving setting victims on fire.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram SinghRelied on¶23
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (3) SCC 22] · Who else cites this
State of Kerala v. RaneefRelied on¶23
State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784] · Who else cites this
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and AnotherDistinguished¶25
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and Another [(2016) 15 SCC 422] · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, DelhiFollowed¶30
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280] · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Amarmani TripathiFollowed¶35
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BINEETH @ KARIMANI
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
