Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ND WEDNESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945 C.P.NO.48/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ASHA KRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KRISHNA BHAVANAM, KOTTAKKAPURAM, KULASEKHARAPURAM, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 544. BY ADVS. BINU GEORGE HEMALATHA AMANTA MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031. ADV. SREEJA V., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2023 The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.362/2023 of Karunagappally Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 302 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 10.03.2023 at
around 15.30 hours, the accused quarreled with his father and repeatedly beat the father with a frying pan, thereby causing serious injuries which led to his death. The mother of the petitioner, who tried to intervene, was also brutally attacked and serious injuries were sustained by her. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and as part of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.
3. Heard Smt. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State. -3-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. It is further pointed out that there is no purpose in keeping the petitioner under judicial detention, as the final report is already submitted, and the matter is pending as C.P. No.48/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. According to him, even going by the prosecution case, the intention of the petitioner to commit the murder is not discernible, and it occurred during the course of quarrel between the petitioner and his father.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
opposes the said application by pointing out that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, as per the statement given by the mother, sister and wife of the petitioner, the petitioner used to enter into quarrels between them regularly, and therefore, it is pointed out that if the release of the petitioner is ordered, in all probabilities he is likely to influence or intimidate the witnesses. Therefore, the dismissal of the application was sought.
6. I have gone through the records. From the materials, it is evident that this is a case in which the -4-
petitioner committed the murder of his father in a brutal manner. From the postmortem report, it can be seen that 15 antemortem injuries are noted. Besides the same, as per the statement of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner used to attack the wife and the children; consequently, she left the house of the petitioner and started living with her parents. According to her, the petitioner was under the impression that, because of the interference of her father, she left the house and this ultimately led to the murder of the deceased.
7. After considering all the materials placed on record,
I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted merely because of the reason that, the final report has been submitted. The allegations raised are very serious. Besides the same, I also find some force in the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor with regard to the chances of witnesses being intimidation, if the petitioner is released on bail. It is evident from the statements of the witnesses, including the wife and mother of the petitioner that the petitioner is a person of quarrelsome nature and he always used to abuse, threaten and assault them. Thus, when
-5- all the aforementioned aspects are considered, I find no reason to grant bail to the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE bpr -6- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6211/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 362/20123 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MC. NO. 17.06.2023 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM. Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.NO.1505/2023 IN CRIME NO. 362/2023 DATED 15.07.2023 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM.