The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam disposed of a second bail application filed by petitioners accused of murder. Upholding the previous rejection, the court held that delay alone does not warrant bail in grave crimes, citing the heavy pendency at the trial court as a reason for future disposal without specific directives.
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
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.4692 OF 2020
CRIME NO.20/2020 OF Kumily Police Station , Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
1 BHOOPENDRA RAWAT, AGED 26 YEARS, PACHADI VILLAGE, MURIANA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH – 484001.
2 AMAR SINGH RAVAL AGED 22 YEARS, HURKHOON VILLAGE, SHIYIOOIIR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND SRI.G.RENJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON 08.01.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.4692 of 2020
2
O R D E R
Dated this the 8th day of January 2021
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and
another [(2010) 14 SCC 496] , it has been held that
while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors
which can be reproduce in the said passage:
"9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the 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."
B.A.No.4692 of 2020
3
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, Article 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 nonbailable 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 Article 21, since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail
where fact situations require it to do so. In that process, a person whose application for enlargement on
B.A.No.4692 of 2020
4
bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases, if the
circumstances then prevailing require that such persons
be released on bail, in spite of his earlier
applications being rejected, the courts can do so. The principles of res judicata and such analogous
principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine
of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our Country. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice. (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [2005 KHC 604 : AIR 2005 SC 921] )
as B.A.No.3564 of 2020, and this Court had on 10.08.2020 rejected the bail considering all the
grounds raised by the applicant in favour of granting
B.A.No.4692 of 2020
5
bail to him. The offence alleged is one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The progress in the case considered. In view of the heavy pendency of cases in the trial Court, expeditious disposal might be difficult, particularly in these pandemic times. It is aptly obsered by Justice Krishna Iyer in Special Courts
Bill, 1978, Re (1979 (1) SCC 380) as thus :
" 115. It is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal courts excel in slow motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions, not to speak of the contribution to delay by the administration itself by neglect of the basic necessaries of the judicial process."
However, delay alone is no reason to grant bail to the applicant in a grave crime like that in the instant case. Applying the parameters set forth by the Apex Court, the applicant is not entiled to bail. I am convinced that the trial Court is making earnest attempt to dispose of the matter. Considering the pademic restrictions, I am not inclined to direct
B.A.No.4692 of 2020
6
disposal within a specified time.
This succesive application for bail desrves no
merit, and is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case alleging murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. in light of the previous rejection of their bail application.
Whether delay in trial due to pandemic restrictions is a ground to grant bail in a grave crime.
Whether the successive bail application deserves merit considering the principles of judicial discipline.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [2005 KHC 604 : AIR 2005 SC 921]Followed¶45
BHOOPENDRA RAWAT
AMAR SINGH RAVAL
STATE OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
