Allowed

K.a.Sabu, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5570/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioners bail application in a murder case involving death in custody. The High Court observed that investigation is not complete and merits cannot be explored. The petitioner has no prior record. Bail is granted subject to conditions to prevent interference and injection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail with bond of Rs. 40,000/- and two sureties subject to conditions of reporting, no entry into Thodupuzha division, and no interference with witnesses.

K.a.Sabu, Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶4

Bail Appl..No.5570 OF 2019

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1171/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PEERUMEDU

¶6

CRIME NO.390/2019 OF Peerumedu Police Station, Idukki

PETITIONER/S:

K.A.SABU,

AGED 46 YEARS

S/O.ANTONY, KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, PERUMPILLY KARA, MANJAPETTY, NJARACKAL VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, IDUKKI-685 587.

¶15

BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS,ADGP/STATE PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶20

-2-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.349 of

¶23

2019 of Peermade Police Station, which was re-registered as Crime No.390/CB/IDK/R/2019 of Crime Branch, Idukki. The offences alleged are the offences punishable under Sections 302, 343, 348, 323, 324, 330 and 331 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case can be briefly stated thus:-

¶25

The petitioner and the other accused had taken Rajkumar @ Kumar, who was the accused in Crime No.302 of 2019 of Nedumkandam Police Station, into custody on 12.6.2019 and thereafter, he was tortured in custody for the purpose of extracting confession. He was eventually produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.6.2019 at about 10.40 p.m. The learned Magistrate remanded him to the Sub Jail, Peermade. He was admitted

¶26

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶27

-3-

¶28

in the Sub Jail, Peermade on 16.6.2019. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital on 18.6.2019, as some complications were developed. Finally, he died on 21.6.2019 at about 10.30 a.m., while undergoing treatment in the Taluk Hospital, Peermade. It is alleged that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the custodial torture by the petitioner and the other accused.

¶29

The petitioner was arrested on 3.7.2019 and ever since he has been in custody.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner was the Sub Inspector of

¶32

Police of Nedumkandam Police Station during the relevant

¶33

period. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued

¶34

that no custodial torture was inflicted on the deceased at the

¶35

Police Station, as is evident from the medical records

¶36

and in the said circumstances, the further detention of the

¶37

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶38

-4-

¶39

petitioner is not justified. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, on the other hand, has submitted that there are materials, including the second post-mortem certificate, showing that there was custodial torture at the Police Station and hence, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶40

This Court had called for the report from the learned Magistrate directing the learned Magistrate to state about the physical condition of the deceased at the time when he was produced before the learned Magistrate. This Court also directed the learned Magistrate to state as to whether the learned Magistrate had asked him as to whether there was any ill-treatment by the Police. The report has been received from the learned Magistrate, which would show that he had no complaint of ill-treatment

¶41

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶42

against the Police. In the report, the learned Magistrate stated that the deceased was having an injury on his ankle of left foot. The deceased told the learned Magistrate that the said injury was caused in a fall when he ran on seeing the Police. The wound certificate produced would also show that the deceased sustained an injury on the left ankle and hence, the deceased had difficulty in walking. The wound certificate would further show that the said injury was caused when the deceased fell down when he ran on seeing the Police. The Medical Certificate produced when the deceased was produced before the Jail authorities would also show that the deceased sustained an injury on the ankle of his left foot. The Jail authorities admitted the deceased into the Sub Jail on 16.6.2019 and thereafter, he was there upto 18.6.2019. On 18.6.2019, he was taken to the

¶43

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶44

-6-

¶45

hospital. At that time, he complained, for the first time, that he sustained injuries due to the physical torture by the Police. It appears that the deceased did not even state to the inmates in the Jail till 18.6.2019, with regard to the alleged torture at the Police Station.

¶46

When this Court asked the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution as to whether the Investigating Officer had seen the visuals in the CCTVs installed in the Police Station and the Jail, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer did not see the CCTVs. However, the CCTVs were transmitted to the Laboratory for examination of its contents. In fact, the Investigating Officer should have seen the visuals in the CCTVs to ascertain as to whether there was custodial torture or not, before forwarding the CCTVs for scientific examination. The Medical certificates and the other circumstances available in this

¶47

case do not support the prosecution case that there was

¶48

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶49

custodial torture at the Police Station, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the

¶50

statement of the witnesses and the policemen on duty were already recorded by the Investigating Officer. The said statements would primafacie disclose the torture at the Police Station, submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the submissions on both sides, touching the merits of the case, as the investigation is not yet complete.

¶51

It appears that the statements of all the important witnesses have been already recorded by the Police. It further appears that the major part of the investigation is almost complete. The petitioner has been in custody ever since his arrest on 3.7.2019. The petitioner has no criminal

¶52

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶53

-8-

¶54

antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶55

case, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶56

In the result, this application stands allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like

¶57

sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶58

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Kottayam, who is the Investigating Officer, on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶59

(ii) The petitioner shall not enter into the limits

¶60

Case No. BA 5570/19

¶61

-9-

¶62

of the Sessions Division, Thodupuzha, without the leave of the learned Magistrate until further orders.

¶63

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence of similar nature during the pendency of this case.

¶64

(iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶65

Needless to state that no observation made in this order shall be construed as expression on merits of the case, as the observation, if any, made was only for the purpose of disposing of this Bail Application.

¶66

¶67

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶68

dl/

K.a.Sabu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Sabu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remesh Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh @ Sudhi Vs State of Kerala

Ahmed Riyas, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeermon, Vs the State of Kerala

Zeenath Vs State of Kerala