Dismissed

Saji George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024Bail Appl./638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's regular bail application in a case involving the murder of his 19-year-old son under Section 302 IPC. The court cited threats to the minor witness and the risk of absconding near the end of the trial as grounds for denial, while noting the petitioner's right to approach the Trial Court for fair trial accommodations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Saji George Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 638 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.246/2020 OF PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.7402 OF 2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJI GEORGE
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, THERAKATHANADIYIL HOUSE, UPPADANNA,
PAYYAVOOR.P.O., PAYYAVOOR VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR., PIN - 670633
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
N.P.ASHA
NICHOLAS JOSEPH
B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – AJITH VISWANATHAN
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.()

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

Bail Appln No. 638 of 2023 : 2 :

¶12

VIJU ABRAHAM , J.

¶13

===========================

¶14

Bail Appln. No. 638 of 2023

¶15

============================

¶16

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application for regular bail.

¶19

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.246 of 2020 of Payyavoor Police Station, Kannur registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case is that, the accused was residing in his house with his sons, the elder one was aged 19 years and the younger one was aged 15 years. The wife of the accused was abroad in Italy, earning for the family, she was sending money to the accused. But, because of the wayward life of the accused, who was involved in consuming as well as distilling of arrack, the wife stopped sending money to the accused and instead started sending money to her elder son, who was 19 years old. This provoked the accused and he quarrelled with the elder son. The quarrel turned to physical attack and it is alleged that the elder son even manhandled the accused, because of his opposition towards the accused’s consuming alcohol and distilling of arrack. The accused was humiliated by the act of his son, and as a result of which the accused premeditated to commit the murder of his son and on the fateful

¶21

Bail Appln No. 638 of 2023 : 3 :

¶22

day, 15.08.2020, at about 3.30 PM, he purchased a knife with a motive of murdering his son, came home with it and inflicted a single deep penetrating stab on the back of his son, who was engaged in watching his mobile phone. The son succumbed to the single blow with the knife which proved to be fatal.

¶23

The petitioner submits that the examination of witnesses is over including that of his minor son and therefore the apprehension raised by the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail there is every chance for influencing and intimidating the witnesses has no basis. Petitioner submits that for a fair trial, he should be granted bail so as to properly defend his case.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail. The petitioner murdered his son, aged 19 in the presence of his younger son, who was aged 14 at that time and that the younger son who is now living with his uncle is in mentally depressed condition and if the petitioner is released, his younger son and other relatives who have witnessed the incident fear some brutal reaction from the side of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that since the trial is at the fag end, there is every chance for the petitioner to abscond.

¶25

This Court while considering the bail application as per Annexure 1 order, has held that the petitioner has to face custodial trial. The second bail application was also dismissed since there was

¶26

Bail Appln No. 638 of 2023 : 4 :

¶27

serious threat to the younger son who is the prime witness in the crime and he had even applied for protection under the Witness Protection Scheme and the said application is kept pending as the accused is behind the bar. The contention that if the petitioner is not released on bail he will not be able to effectively conduct the defence case, is not a reason for grant of jail when he is involved in a crime of a heinous nature as held by the Apex Court in Rajesh

¶28

Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [2007 KHC 3002].

¶29

Taking into consideration the possible threat to the minor son of the petitioner, who has witnessed the alleged crime and also the apprehension raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the trial is at the fag end, there is every chance for the petitioner to abscond, if he is released on bail, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be given sufficient opportunity for a fair trial for which, if required the petitioner will be free to approach the Trial Court.

¶30

The bail application is disposed of as above.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶33

sbk/-

Saji George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Saji George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reghuvaran.P.a, Vs State of Kerala

Bini Denson, Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Abraham, Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan v Vs State of Kerala

Saleena Beevi Vs District Collector