Dismissed

Sanil Muhammed Khani v. State of Kerala , High Court of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2022Bail Appl./1456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the bail application of Petitioner, the 1st accused accused of murdering Sambath with the 2nd accused. The Court held that the brutal nature of the crime, criminal antecedents, risk to witnesses, and possibility of further offences justified denial of bail despite pendency of trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application stood dismissed; petitioner remains in custody.

Sanil Muhammed Khani Vs State of Kerala , High Court of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 1456 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.1167/2021 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

CRMP 34/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SANIL MUHAMMED KHANI AGED 31 YEARS SAJITHA MANZIL' NEAR SBI PUTHUKURIHY, PERUMATHURA DESOM, KADINAMKULAM V ILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036 BY ADV V.V.SURESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA , HIGH COURT OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ADDL.R2. SAMBA SIVAN, AGED 72 YEARS SURABI, THEATRE ROAD, PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695024 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 6/5/2022 IN CRL.MA.1/2022. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA M.R.SASITH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10) SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.() SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR()

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

PP: SMT. K.B.SONY

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.1456/2022

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1167/2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.1253/2021 before the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶18

The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner, the 2^nd accused – Sajad and the deceased Sambath were friends. The petitioner was arrested by the Attingal Police in Crime No.492/2021 alleging commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 and under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The deceased Sambath spread rumours that the 2^nd accused Sajad had betrayed the petitioner to the Police. However, the petitioner and the 2^nd accused Sajad were firmly of the opinion that it was the deceased Sambath, who had actually betrayed the petitioner. It is alleged that on 28.6.2021, the petitioner, after careful planning, killed Sambath at his house in Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that the petitioner used the knife concealed by him to attack Sambath while the 2^nd accused grabbed a knife from the residence of Sambath and attacked him. It is alleged that while Sambath had tried to take refuge in the kitchen of his house, the petitioner along with 2^nd accused broke open the kitchen door and brutally murdered Sambath using knives in their possession. It is also alleged that they

¶19

B.A.No.1456/2022

¶20

¶21

used a roller pin found in the kitchen to inflict injuries on Sambath.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purposes of investigation as a final report has already been filed in the matter. It is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner will be a violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 28.6.2021. It is submitted that all criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner are minor offences. It is submitted that nearly 600 sessions cases are pending trial and it is unlikely that the trial of the case will be concluded soon. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner had delivered a baby boy on 30.6.2021 and the petitioner has been in custody from 28.6.2021. It is submitted that the investigation was carried out in a very casual manner and the wife of the petitioner has given an application before the State Police Chief for a proper investigation into the crime. It is submitted that the further custody of the petitioner is not necessary and has a valid defence in the case.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. Post-mortem report of the deceased Sambath is referred

¶24

B.A.No.1456/2022

¶25

¶26

to, to point out the brutal nature of the crime. It is submitted that the deceased Sambath suffered as many as 93 grievous injuries as per the post-mortem report. It is submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is accused in three cases before Kadinamkulam Police Station and two cases before the Attingal Police Station, apart from the present crime registered at the Vanchiyoor Police Station. The details of the investigation are pointed out to show that a proper investigation was conducted into the matter and that the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused including the petitioner herein. It is submitted that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and/or intimidating and influencing material witnesses in the case. It is submitted that considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, possibility of him committing further offences cannot be ruled out.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The circumstances which compelled me to deny bail to the petitioner are;

¶28

i) The brutal nature of the offence committed by the petitioner.

¶29

ii) The criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

¶30

B.A.No.1456/2022

¶31

¶32

iii) The distinct possibility of material witnesses being influenced or intimidated in the matter; and.

¶33

iv) The possibility of the petitioner indulging in other offences, if released on bail.

¶34

The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner including the fact that the trial of S.C.No. 1253/2021 before the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram is not likely to take place soon are not matters which indicate that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. I am also convinced that merely because the wife of the petitioner had filed a petition for re-investigation, there is no reason to believe that the present investigation has not proceeded in the correct manner.

¶35

For all these reasons, the bail application of the petitioner will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd

Sanil Muhammed Khani v. State of Kerala , High Court of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanil Muhammed Khani v. State of Kerala , High Court of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahmath Khan , Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs

Thomas P. Kuriakose Vs the Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

Antony Paul Vs the Authorised Officer

Alikunju P S Vs Authorised Officer

Haneef Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh@Sreejith Vs State of Kerala