The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of two bail applications (BAs 4421/2020 and 5318/2020) jointly. The applicants, accused in a series of murders involving poisoning, were denied bail citing grave charges, risk to witnesses, and potential for reoffending.
Bail applications BAs 4421/2020 and 5318/2020 were dismissed, keeping the accused in custody.
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 ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4421 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 188/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO.334/2019 OF Kodenchery Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M.S MATHEW AGED 44 YEARS MANJADIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, KAKKAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 306. 673306
BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031. 682031
R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.8.2020, THE COURT ON 08.12.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING COMMON ORDER, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5318/2020 FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2020 :
2
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
ASHOK MENON, J.
BA Nos.4421 and 5318 of 2020
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2020
COMMON ORDER
Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
334/2019 of Kodenchery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 2 read with Section 6(2) of Poisons Act 1919.
3
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
to the aforesaid Mathew by mixing it with water and liquor served to him between 15:30 hours and 17:20 hours, on 24/02/2014 resulting in his death by about 7 PM on that day at Shanthi Hospital, Omassery.
The first accused had resided with her late husband Roy Thomas and his parents for about 14 years. All these years, she had made them believe that she was employed as a Professor in NIT, Kozhikode.
Her mother in law Late Annamma Thomas was a shrewd lady. Fearing that she may discover the truth about the first accused's
4
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
unemployment, and found her to be a stumbling block in her taking control of the affairs of the matrimonial home she was the first to be administered dog poison in her food on 22/02/2002. She consumed her dinner laced with poison and passed away. No one had any reason to suspect the death and her body was interred as a natural death. After Annamma's death, her second victim was Tom Thomas, her father-in-law. Having got all his property bequeathed in the name of her late husband Roy Thomas, by concocting a Will she wanted the bequest to come into force, and hence liquidated him by administering cyanide on 26/08/2008. Then she devised a plan to get rid of her own husband Roy Thomas. That is how the properties bequeathed to him would have devolved upon her. On 30/09/2011, he was found lying unconscious on the floor of his toilet. The untimely death of Roy was the turning point. His siblings were not ready to believe the story of his untimely unnatural death. With the help and assistance of their uncle Mathew, they got the body of Roy subjected to autopsy. That is the first time death by cyanide poisoning was
5
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
unravelled. A1 was still successful in contriving a story of a depressed alcoholic man ending his life in desperation. The investigation of the FIR registered as No. 189/2011 at Kodencheri Police Station under S.174 Cr.P.C; was closed as a case of suicide. Doubting that Machadiyil Mathew was nosy and attempted to reopen the investigation pertaining to the suspicious death of his nephew, he needed to be silenced. The death of his nephew and his parents made him inquisitive enough to be instrumental for an investigation by the Police. Fearing that he would be a stumbling block in her pursuit for happiness and financial security, he too was administered cyanide and murdered as stated above. By that time, the first accused had developed an intimacy with her present husband Shaju. But he was a married man with a kid and she could not have got him as her husband without first removing those hurdles. Hence, very cunningly she got intimate with his wife late Sili. Thereafter, their child Alphine too was eliminated in a similar manner on 03/05/2014. Under the guise of helping Sili, she went along with her for an appointment
6
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
with a dentist and laced her medicines with cyanide, resulting in her death on 11/01/2016. Playing the role of a sympathiser, she got intimate with Shaju who had lost daughter and wife. They got married. Rojo Thomas, the brother of deceased Roy was not convinced about the version that his brother would commit suicide. He triggered a further investigation into all the deaths that had occurred by filing a petition before the District Police Chief on 20/06/2019. Persistent follow-up by the siblings of Roy Thomas induced the Police to shed their indolence and to reopen and proceed with the investigation in Crime No.189/2011 of Kodenchery Police Station seriously. All the dead bodies were exhumed and subjected to autopsy. Her involvement in all other crimes came to the fore and she was arrested on 05/10/2019 and her confession statement was recorded which indicated her complicity in all the abovementioned crimes. FIR Nos. 332, 333, 334 and 335 of 2019 were registered at Kodenchery Police Station for the murders of Annamma, Tom Thomas, Manjadiyil Mathew and Alfine and Crime No.980/2019 was
7
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
registered at Thamarassery Police Station for the death of Sili Shaju.
to proceed with the trial. It is stated that the chemical examination report does not indicate anything to suggest the involvement of A1. No remnants of cyanide have been recovered from the body subjected to autopsy. Hence, the learned Counsel appearing for A1, Shri B.A.Aloor, strenuously argues that A1 be released on bail.
shop in Kozhikode, and is the sole breadwinner of his family. Moreover, the chemical analysis report does not confirm the presence of Cyanide in the body of the deceased. That would totally belie the case of the prosecution that A2 had supplied poison to A1 to
8
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
carry out the murders. It is submitted that A3 has been granted bail. A2 being similarly placed as A3 may therefore be granted bail. Shri. Sharan Shahier, the learned counsel for A2 submits that there are no materials indicating the complicity of A2.
9
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
the opportunity to lace the drink with cyanide supplied to her by A2.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & others, [1980 KHC 664 : (1980) 2
SCC 559] , held that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. To be satisfied with a prima facie case is needed, but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. Discussion at prolix length, the probabilities of the prosecution's exculpatory case or its weaknesses is unwarranted.
11. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v.NCT Delhi, [(2001) 4 SCC
280], the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined thus:-
“(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c)While it is not expected to have the entire
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
10
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
Apex Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge to be kept in mind while considering an application for bail.
11
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
Prosecutor that A1 had attempted to commit suicide inside the jail by slashing her wrists. Timely intervention saved her life. In case she is released on bail, there is every possibility of her influencing or intimidating witnesses, repeating similar offences also cannot be ruled out, and may even go to the extent of causing harm to herself.
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
12
procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Art.21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Art.21 since the same is authorised by law.”
In this context, it would be profitable to reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (16) SCC 508] ,
wherein the Court setting aside an order granted observed thus:
"The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be
BAs 4421 & 5318/2020
13
paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."
The bail applications are, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE
jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to accused charged with multiple murder cases involving poisoning and conspiracy.
Whether reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and repeat offenses justifies denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Niranjan Singh & another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & othersReferred¶58
Niranjan Singh & another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & others, [1980 KHC 664 : (1980) 2 SCC 559] · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT DelhiRelied on¶61
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi, [(2001) 4 SCC 280] · Who else cites this
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶70
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525] · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu YadavRelied on¶77
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [2005 (2) SCC 42: 2005 KHC 604] · Who else cites this
Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶83
Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (16) SCC 508] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.S Mathew
State of Kerala
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
