Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRIME NO.1018/2022 OF THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ANTONY V V AGED 39 YEARS HOUSE NO.204, THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE, KADARIBAG, NAVAL BASE, VTC, NOW RESIDING IN RENTED HOUSE OF POONKUDY, RAMESWARAM COLONY, MOOLAMKUZHI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682002 BY ADVS. P.S.SYAMKUTTAN M.R.XAVIER JESS RESPONDENT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, THOPPUMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.SREEJA-SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1018/2022 of Thoppumpady Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 201, 203, 302, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner along with
the 2nd accused who is the wife of the petitioner, on 29.11.2022 at about 10 a.m., committed the murder of the grandmother of the 2 nd accused who was living along with them. It is alleged that, after a quarrel between the 1st accused and the deceased, the petitioner herein, dragged her from the kitchen to the courtyard of the said house, and hit her head on a concrete slab, thereby causing severe
head injury which ultimately led to her death. The allegation against the 2nd accused was that, she aided the 1st accused to conceal and disappear the evidence. The crime was registered in such circumstances and both the accused persons were arrested on 01.12.2022. Since then they were in judicial custody.
3. Earlier B.A. No.3741/2023 was filed by both the
accused together, and it culminated in Annexure A1 order passed by this Court in which bail was granted to the 2 nd accused, and the application submitted on behalf the petitioner/1st accused was dismissed. This application is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances seeking the release of the petitioner/1st accused.
4. Heard Sri.M.R.Xavier Jess, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even
though the 2nd accused was released on bail as per Annexure A1, she is unable to execute bond as there is no one to take care of her. According to him, the petitioner is the only person who can take care of the 2nd accused and only if the petitioner is released on bail, both of them can arrange sureties and come out of the judicial detention. It is also pointed out that, the 2 nd accused, is now under detention along with a child aged just one year, and she was diagnosed to have Nephrotic Syndrome at the age of 7 years and was on prednisolone and she had multiple relapses on tapering Prednisolone. She was restarted on Prednisolone and discharge on
19.04.2023 when her condition improved. Currently she in on regular follow up Nephrology OP (UHID:T11912907230033). At present she is asymptomatic with partial remission of Nephrotic Syndrome and steroid induced diabetes which is not controlled. She requires long term medications and follow up for her condition. The release of the petitioner was sought in such circumstances.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said
application by pointing out that, this is a case in which an old lady was brutally murdered. Besides the same, both the petitioners were having antecedents as well as they were involved in Crime No.736/2017 of Arthunkal Police Station which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
7. I have carefully gone through the records. It is true that
there are ample materials against the petitioner. However, the fact that, the physical condition of the 2 nd accused, who is the wife of the petitioner, cannot be simply ignored while considering the question as to whether the bail is to be granted to the petitioner. The contention regarding the ailments of the 2 nd accused was confirmed by the report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor as well. It is also a fact that, as there is no one to look after the 2 nd accused is even now continuing under detention despite the fact that she was granted bail by this Court. The specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, only if the petitioner is also released on bail, necessary arrangements in this regard can be made. When considering all the said aspect including the fact that, the 2 nd accused is undergoing detention along with a child aged one year, I am persuaded to take lenient view in the matter, even though the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on earlier occasion. While considering this issue it is also a relevant fact that, the petitioner has been in judicial detention since
01.12.2022, and more than seven months have elapsed. Investigation in this case is also over. In such circumstances, this application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Wednesday until the filing of final report. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail. vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any
of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs