Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 338 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 809/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN) (CRIME No.234/2021 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SANU MOHAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, SHEENA BHAVANAM, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O., KARTHIKAPPILLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. SAJJU. S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No.338/2022 -2-
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.234/2021 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 302, 328, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner with an
intention of murdering his 10 year old daughter had taken her out of the legal care and protection of her mother and to his flat in Kangarapady and after intoxicating the child with alcohol strangulated her inside the flat and threw her body into Muttar River. It is alleged that the petitioner planned to flee from the place on account of mounting debts and the motive for killing his daughter is that if the petitioner flees from the place his daughter might not be properly looked after by his wife and her relatives.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following
investigation of the matter a final report has been filed and the matter is now pending as SC 809/2021 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam (Special Court for POSCO Act matters). It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 18-04-2021 and his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation as a final report has been filed in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be able to mount a proper defence to the charges levelled against him if he is continued in custody. It is submitted that story is not as projected by the prosecution and final report suggests
B.A. No.338/2022 -3- that there are various matters which would indicate that the prosecution case is not genuine. It is submitted that in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is submitted that the criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner do not relate to commission of any similar offence and those cases are arise out of financial transactions. It is submitted that the prosecution has been unable to collect any reliable evidence against the petitioner and therefore the continued incarceration of the petitioner is violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. The
circumstances appearing against the petitioner are pointed out. It is submitted that the prosecution has collected substantial evidence in the matter and nearly 93 witnesses are cited by the prosecution to establish its case against the petitioner. It is submitted that there is evidence to suggest that the petitioner had taken his minor daughter from the care and custody of his wife after stating that he is taking her to see his uncle and thereafter he gave the child some soft drinks mixed with alcohol and strangulated the child inside his flat and thereafter threw her body into Muttar River. It is submitted that the petitioner had thereafter escaped from the place and the investigating agency had to go to great lengths to traced out the petitioner and arrest him. It is submitted that if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage there is every chance the petitioner will influence the material witnesses in the case. It is submitted that there are medico-legal evidences which suggest that the child was strangulated in the flat by the petitioner. It is submitted that there is
B.A. No.338/2022 -4- evidence which shows that the petitioner had taken the child to the flat and had thereafter gone away from the flat driving his own car at around the time when the child was strangulated in the manner indicated above. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor and considering the fact that a final report has already been filed in the matter and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court and since charges have already been framed, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage. I find that there are materials collected during the course of the investigation which prima facie suggest that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. The apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is every chance of the petitioner influencing the material witnesses also appear to be genuine. For all these reasons I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly this bail application will stand dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG