Dismissed

Jumaila v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2022Crl.MC/5506/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC rejected a victim's petition to quash an Anticipatory Bail order granted to accused persons. The court held that bail cancellation requires strong cogent reasons and found the Sessions Judge properly considered the medical records and investigation status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed; Anticipatory Bail order to respondents 4 and 5 stands. Petitioner advised to approach investigating officer with specific complaint instances.

Jumaila Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5506 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 971/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

¶7

COURT,THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/VICTIM:

¶9

JUMAILA AGED 55 YEARS W/O LATE PAREETH, PUTHUKKULAM ARAKKA VEETTIL, THALIKULAM,THRISSUR, PIN - 680659

¶10

BY ADVS. MANSOOR.B.H. SAKEENA BEEGUM

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE AND ACCUSED:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE C BRANCH,THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680003 4 AMEER AGED 65 YEARS S/O MOIDDUTTY,CHAKKARA HOUSE, MANATHALA BABY ROAD DESOM, MANATHALA VILLAGE,THRISSUR., PIN - 680506 5 ALI AGED 61 YEARS S/O MOIDDUTTY,CHAKKARA HOUSE, MANATHALA BABY ROAD DESOM,

¶13

¶14

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶15

MANATHALA VILLAGE,THRISSUR., PIN - 680506 BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)(K/875/2014) S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019)(K/001711/2019) SAJANA V.H(K/1174/2021) VINITHA S.T.(K/704/2021) RUBY K. ROY(K/001015/2017) SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL(K/000585/2016)

¶16

ADV. M. P. PRASANTH - PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of one Pareeth, who was the victim of Crime No. 87/2020 of Chavakkad Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered in connection with the death of the husband of the petitioner, which took place on 5.2.2020. The case of the petitioner is that, on 5.2.2020 at 10 A.M., a scuffle took place between the deceased and the accused persons, and consequent to the injury suffered during the course of such scuffle, the deceased passed away while he was undergoing treatment. Initially, the crime was registered by the Chavakkad Police under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and after conducting an investigation, apparently based on the finding in the Annexure B Postmortem Report, Annexure C report was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur, stating that the death was due to Occlusive Coronary Artery Disease, Physical/Mental stress as per the history could have accelerated/precipitated the event.

¶22

Later, a private complaint numbered as Crl.M.P. No. 3080/2020 was submitted by the petitioner herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, wherein the Annexure D order was passed. As per the same, a direction was

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶25

issued by the learned Magistrate to the investigation officer to conduct further investigation in the matter under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and to submit a report in this regard. Later, as per the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime Branch and final report was submitted, wherein, respondents 4 and 5 were implicated as the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Respondents 4 & 5 submitted Crl.M.C. No. 971/2022 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, seeking anticipatory bail and as per the Annexure G order, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to them subject to certain conditions. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure G order granting the anticipatory bail.

¶27

Heard Sri.B.H.Mansoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.Sarath, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, anticipatory bail was granted to respondents

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶31

4 & 5 without taking into account the gravity of offences and other necessary inputs which ought to have been taken into consideration. It is specifically pointed out that, while granting anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge took into consideration only the Annexure C refer report submitted by the police at the initial stage of the investigation. It is the specific case that, if the reasons mentioned by the learned Magistrate in the Anne xure D or der were considered, the outcome of the same would have been different.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 seriously opposes the same.

¶33

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised by the counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is true that, in Annexure D order, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation by taking note of the medical records wherein certain physical injuries of the deceased were mentioned. The learned Magistrate found that, while submitting refer report as per Annexure C, the police referred only to the cause of death without taking note of the injuries mentioned in the medical records and the impact of the same. That was the reason by which

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶36

the further investigation was ordered and it is evident that such further investigation resulted in registration of the crime. However, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 specifically points out, merely because of that reason alone, it cannot be concluded that respondents 4 and 5 are the persons who caused the said injuries.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically referred to in Annexure D order, wherein the said injury is referred as 'resuscitation fracture'. According to him, the said injury was caused while the deceased was given CPR when he suffered the cardiac problems.

¶38

When the relevant aspects are taken into consideration, I find some force in the case advanced by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Moreover, what is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. is the order by which respondents 4 and 5 were granted anticipatory bail. It is a well settled position o f law that, the cancellation of bail already granted by a competent court on the basis of the discretion exercised by the Court, cannot be interfered with, unless there are strong and cogent reasons justifying the same. The person who is seeking the cancellation of the bail

¶39

¶40

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶41

should show that, the consideration which are relevant for granting anticipatory bail was not applied by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the said order. By keeping that perspective in my mind, I have carefully scrutinized the Annexure G order passed by the Sessions Judge. It is discernible therefrom that, the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the said order would not lead to a conclusion that the jurisdiction was improperly exercised. The gravity of the offences and the cause of death as revealed from the medical records are taken into consideration. Now it is seen that the investigation is completed and the final report is already submitted. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by cancelling the bail granted to respondents 4 and 5 and to detain them in prison. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in Annexure G order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶42

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that respondents 4 and 5 are harassing the petitioner and attempting to threaten her. It is noticed that, as per condition No.4 in the bail order, it is stipulated that the respondents 4 and 5 shall not threaten for influence the witnesses for the prosecution

¶43

¶44

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶45

and will not interfere in the course of investigation. Therefore, it is clarified that, in case, the petitioner was threatened by respondents 4 and 5, nothing precludes her from approaching the investigating officer with a complaint, with reference to the specific instances of such threat, so as to enable the investigation officer to move the Court concerned for cancellation of bail for violation of conditions.

¶46

With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶49

rpk

¶50

¶51

Crl.M.C No. 5506 of 2022

¶52

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5506/2022

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶54

Annexure A	TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R CRIME NO.87/2020 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION
Annexure B	THE COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE DATED 6/2/2020 ISSUED BY THE DR.P.A SHEEJU,POLICE SURGEON DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
Annexure c	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME.NO.87/2020 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION
Annexure D	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CHAVAKKAD IN CRL.M.P.NO,3080/2020 IN CRIME NO.87/2020 OF CHAVAKKAD POLIC W STATION
Annexure E	TRUE COPY OF THEW JUDGMENT DATED 2/11/2021 IN W.P.(C).NO.19965/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure F	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DAATED 28/6/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT THRISSUR
Annexure G	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/7/2022 IN CRIL.M.C.971/2022 OF COURT OF SESSIONS,THRISSUR

Jumaila v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jumaila 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anoop K. J. Vs State of Kerala

Madukolu Chibuzor Samson Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Shine Lal (A1) Vs State of Kerala

Sigin Thomas, Vs State of Kerala

Kunjabdulla Vs State of Kerala

Fahad. P.P Vs State of Kerala