Dismissed

Ram Singh @ Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, upholding the principles of bail jurisprudence, dismissed an application for bail. The Court noted the accused's serious charges, citizenship concerns, extensive criminal record, and high risk of absconding/prejudicing witnesses, rejecting the delay in trial as sufficient grounds for bail. The Sessions Judge was directed to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Sessions Judge directed to give priority and conclude trial within six months.

Ram Singh @ Babu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.372/2018 OF Pampady Police Station, Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAM SINGH @ BABU AGED 32 YEARS NEAR GHATTAN PUBLIC SCHOOL MYNTHANAGAR NEPAL 44600

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.Y.BEYLINE DAS

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

The applicant herein is the 3rd accused in S.C. No.283 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam. He along with the rest of the accused stands charge sheeted under Sections 457, 461 and 394 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant and the rest of the accused are citizens of Nepal. On 17.3.2018 at 11.45 p.m., the applicant along with the rest of the accused are alleged to have trespassed into the office room of the Mattathilparambil Fuels, Vattamala, Pampady with intent to commit robbery and attacked the de facto complainant, who was an employee, with an iron rod. After inflicting serious injuries, he was immobilized with a cord. Thereafter, they are alleged to have robbed a sum of Rs.One lakh kept in the almirah. The acts committed by the applicant and the others were recorded in the camera placed inside the room. The crime was registered later and the applicant herein, who managed to flee, was arrested from Bangalore. Based on the disclosure statement given by the accused, the weapons used for inflicting injuries were recovered.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that he

¶20

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020 3

¶21

was arrested on 25.3.2018 and has been in custody ever since. It is submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Court and by Annexure-A2 order, his application was dismissed with directions to the Sessions Court to expedite the trial. It is submitted that due to the pandemic, the proceedings have been delayed and there is no reasonable likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future.

¶22

While opposing the prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, are also citizens of Nepal and they have fled the country. It is submitted that if the applicant herein is released on bail, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that he would leave the country. It is further submitted that the accused are hardened criminals with a long history of commission of identical offences. He has also referred to a report from the Finger Print Bureau, Delhi Police and it was contended that the applicant herein is involved in not less than 37 crimes registered in various parts of the country during the past five years. The very same modus operandi has been adopted in every case.

¶23

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available. The offence committed by the applicant herein is very grave. The fact that the applicant is involved in not less than 37 other crimes registered in various parts of the country and also that he is a citizen of a different country cannot be ignored while considering his application for bail. The contention of the prosecution that being a citizen of Nepal, there is

¶24

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020 4

¶25

a reasonable possibility that he would make himself scarce also cannot be ignored.

¶26

The principles, which the Court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been stated by the Apex Court in a catena of cases. In

¶27

Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280], it was held thus:

¶28

“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 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.”

¶29

The very same principles were reiterated in State of U.P. v.

¶30

Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] as well.

¶31

The apprehension that the applicant would flee the country and

¶32

thwart the process cannot be brushed aside. As held by the Apex Court, the reasonable possibility of the witnesses being tampered with and the possibility of

¶33

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020 5

¶34

securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial are valid considerations. The mere fact that the applicant has been in custody for some time may not be a reason to allow his application for bail. As held by the Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (AIR 2007 SC 451), while Article 21 is of great importance, a balance must be struck between the right of liberty of the person accused of an offence and the interest of the society. No right can be absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed on the exercise of the rights. The grant of bail due to prolonged incarceration cannot be said to be an absolute rule because the grounds of bail must depend upon the contextual facts and circumstances.

¶35

In the case on hand and in view of the antecedents, the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

¶36

In view of the long period of incarceration undergone by the applicant despite specific directions issued by this Court, a report was called for from the Sessions Judge. It is stated that the trial got delayed since the accused had to be taken to Delhi for being produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in connection with other cases in which he is involved.The learned Sessions Judge has reported that the trial can be concluded within a period of six

¶37

Bail Appl..No.6290 OF 2020 6

¶38

months.

¶39

In that view of the matter, while dismissing the application, I direct

¶40

the learned Sessions Judge to give priority to the case involving the applicant and make an endeavour to take the matter to its logical conclusion at the earliest as expressed in the report dated 22.10.2020.

¶41

This application will stand dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

DSV

Ram Singh @ Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh @ Babu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveesh Vs the Registering Authority

Athira Vs Public Prosecutor

Baby Mohanan Vs Station House Officer

Mrs. Baby Pius Vs State of Kerala

Suma.P.a Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sivasankaran Nair Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala Bank)