The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hearing a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., dismissed the plea of the second accused. It held that despite co-accused bail, the accused was actively involved in administering poison to murder multiple victims, making him a danger to society.
Bail application dismissed; accused remanded to judicial 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 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4457 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 189/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO.189/2011 OF Kodenchery Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
MS MATHEW AGED 44 YEARS MANJADIYIL HOUSE,KAKKAVAYAL KAKKAD, KOZHIKODE,PIN - 673 586. 673586
BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 682031
R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.8.2020, THE COURT ON 15.12.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 4457/2020
2
ASHOK MENON, J.
BA Nos.4457 of 2020
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2020
ORDER
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
3
BA 4457/2020
The first accused had been residing 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 unemployment, she 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 kill” poison in her soup on 22/02/2002. She had her dinner and soup laced with poison and passed away. No one had any reason to suspect the death and her body was interred as a
4
BA 4457/2020
natural demise. 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, ended his life by administering cyanide on 26/08/2008. Then, she devised a plan to get rid of her own husband Roy Thomas. He had become a durkard, as stated earlier. His intimacy to the applicant made things easy. On the death of Roy, the properties bequeathed to him would devolve 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 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
5
BA 4457/2020
case of suicide. Realising that, Machadiyil Mathew was getting too nosy and was attempting 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 to initiate 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 him on 24/02/2014. By that time, the first accused was enamoured 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 with a dentist and laced her medicines with cyanide, resulting in her death on 11/01/2016. Playing the role of a sympathiser, she succeeded in getting intimate to Shaju, a bereaved father who had lost daughter and a widower who had lost his wife.
6
BA 4457/2020
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 unrelenting 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 registered at Thamarassery Police Station for the death of Sili Shaju.
7
BA 4457/2020
05.10.2019. They were remanded. A1 and the applicant continue in judicial custody, while A3 was granted bail by this court vide Order dated 25-11-2019 at Annexure-1. The final report has been laid within the statutory period.
applicant and Sri Suman Chakravarthy, the senior Public Prosecutor. Records perused.
in pursuit of happiness in her new found marital life with her present husband Shaju.
BA 4457/2020
8
10. 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 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.”
11. In Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525] , the
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
9
BA 4457/2020
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.
accused had snuffed out six lives, some of which in its prime.
BA 4457/2020
10
SCC 42: 2005 KHC 604] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the 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 also 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 granting bail 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.
BA 4457/2020
11
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 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 application, is therefore, dismissed. I am sure that the
BA 4457/2020
12
learned Sessions Judge would earnestly endeavour to dispose the
case expeditiously.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with multiple murders involving supply of poison.
Whether the accused's role in conspiring and supplying cyanide justifies continued detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT DelhiExplained¶9
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi, [(2001) 4 SCC 280] · Who else cites this
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525] · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu YadavExplained¶9
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [2005 (2) SCC 42: 2005 KHC 604] · Who else cites this
Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶9
Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (16) SCC 508] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms Mathew
State of Kerala
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
