Dismissed

Kuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2021Bail Appl./4545/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application of a second accused charged with murder. Despite arguments regarding prolonged detention and the chief accused seeking time, the court held that the gravity of the offence and risk of tampering with evidence warranted dismissal, directing the Sessions Judge to complete the trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed; Sessions Judge directed to expedite trial and conclude it within three months.

Kuttan Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.1584/2019 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM SC 245/2020 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR

¶8

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

¶9

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶10

KUTTAN

¶11

AGED 38 YEARS

¶12

S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PUSHPA BHAVAN, SANGAR NAGAR, PULLIKKADA, VADAKKUBHAGOMCHERRY, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶17

SRI SAJJU S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 2

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

The applicant is the 2nd accused in S.C.No. 245/2020 on the file of

¶23

the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam. He faces indictment for having committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The 1st accused in the aforesaid crime is the son of a lady by the name of Savithri. He had serious animosity towards his mother. He is alleged to have demanded his mother to transfer her immovable property to his name, which was not acceded to. Aggrieved by the above, on 3.9.2019, at about 5 pm, with intent to commit murder, the 1st accused is alleged to have assaulted and strangulated her and thereby made her weak. The applicant was then summoned to dispose of the dead body. They dug a pit and the body was placed inside. Then they noticed that the mother was alive and was moving. Both the accused are alleged to have stamped on her chest resulting in a fracture of her ribs. The medical examination revealed that the victim had died only after being buried in the pit and that she was alive when she was placed inside. The investigation was completed and the final report has already been laid.

¶25

The applicant had approached this Court on earlier occasions and this Court after evaluating the facts and circumstances had refused to grant bail

¶26

to the applicant. While dismissing the applications, this Court took note of the

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 3

¶28

apprehension raised by the prosecution that the applicant is likely to tamper with the evidence and may intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶29

Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody from 14.10.2019 and prays that he be released on bail considering the fact that he has sick children and also the fact that his family is suffering due to his prolonged incarceration. It is submitted that the chance of the case being taken up for trial in the near future is remote. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that he had assisted the principal accused to dispose of the dead body and nothing more.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the applicant along with the first accused had brutally murdered an old lady. It is submitted that the allegations are so grave that his release on bail at this stage is unwarranted. It is submitted that the earlier bail application was dismissed taking note of the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence and also that he is likely to abscond if released at this stage.

¶31

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through

¶32

the materials made available. It is settled that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 4

¶34

accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail and finally (ix) the larger interest of the public or the State (See: State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr .[(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors . [(2002) 3 SCC 598] ; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr .[2012 (10) SCALE 237] .

¶35

In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118)] , it was held that the provisions for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the higher courts. The court will have to balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail in a case to case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 5

¶37

In the case on hand, this court had considered the entire facts and circumstances and had concluded that the allegations are grave and that release of the applicant was not warranted. This Court had also taken note of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the applicant was likely to tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel is that he has been in custody for a prolonged period. As held by the Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [AIR 2002 (SC) 1475], while liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all round effort on the part of courts to protect such liberties of individuals, this protection can be made available to the deserving ones only. Protection cannot be termed to be absolute but stand qualified depending upon the exigencies of the situation. Liberty is to be secured through the process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the near and dear of the victim, who lost her life and also the collective interest of the community in order to ensure that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution.

¶38

10. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Anr.

¶39

[JT 2012 (9) SC 155], the Apex Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under: -

¶40

“It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect

¶41

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 6

¶42

of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires.

¶43

We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of certain conditions.‟

¶44

In that view of the matter, the contention of the applicant that incarceration undergone by him in a case of murder is sufficient reason for enlargement cannot be sustained.

¶45

However, in view of the fact that the applicant has been in custody from 14.10.2019, this Court had directed the registry to get a report from the Court of Session as to the prospects of expediting the trial. In the report submitted by the learned Session Judge, it is stated that the FSL report has been received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram on 8.1.2021 and the case was posted for framing of charge on 14.7.2021. However, the counsel appearing for the accused had sought time for hearing on the charge.

¶46

BAIL APPL. NO. 4545 OF 2021 7

¶47

The case was adjourned to 26.7.2021 for hearing on charge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It is stated that the counsel appearing for the 1st accused has relinquished his Vakkalath and hence Legal Aid Counsel was asked to defend the accused. It is stated that the case is now posted to 10.08.2021 for hearing on charge and that the trial can be concluded within a period of three months.

¶48

In that view of the matter while dismissing the application for enlargement of the applicant on bail, I direct the learned Sessions Judge to expedite the trial in terms of the report dated 05.08.2021 and take the matter to its logical conclusion within the time period stated in the report.

¶49

This application will stand dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

IAP

Kuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuttan 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

Nandakumar, Vs the Tahasildar (L.R.)

Joseph Scaria Vs the District Collector,Idukki

Dr.Sandra Sunny, Vs Director General of Police Kerala

Kamalam S, Vs the Spacial Tahasildar

A.Arunachalam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Bank of Baroda Vs the Village Officer