Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943 Bail Appl..No.2542 OF 2021 CRIME NO.18/2021 OF THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, Kollam PETITIONER/ACCUSED: 1 SANTHINI, AGED 36 YEARS PADINJATTATHIL VEETTIL, NJARAMOODUBHAGATH, KIZHAKKUMURI, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691319 2 RAJESH, AGED 41 YEARS PADINJATTATHIL VEETTIL, NJARAMOODUBHAGATH, KIZHAKKUMURI, THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: PP AJITH MURALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of April 2021 The deceased, a lady aged 75 years was found dead at her residence on 01.02.2021. Initially a crime was registered under Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An inquest report was also prepared. As her daughter expressed suspicion, postmortem
examination was conducted and it was revealed that death was due to manual strangulation.
2. Thereafter investigation was conducted and it was revealed that the petitioners who are the daughter-in-law and son of the deceased had committed the murder with
the intention to grab her property and thereafter they were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 348, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No. 18 of 2021 of Thekkumbhagom Police Station on 02.02.2021.
3. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them, but they are undergoing unnecessary incarceration and hence, the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also
submitted that there is no one to look after the minor children of the petitioners and hence, the request is to release them on bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the case of the petitioners and contended that they have committed murder of the aged lady just to grab her property. Since the 1st petitioner is the daughter-in-law and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the deceased, most of the witnesses to the prosecution are the relatives of the parties. So, if they are released on bail, there is every possibility to intimidate and influence the witnesses to the prosecution. Hence, this application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Heard both sides and perused the CD file.
6. The deceased, a lady, was aged 75 years. She was having certain properties and she was residing along with the petitioners at
her residential house. During her stay with the petitioners, she was subjected to inhuman treatment, cruelty and torture with the intention to grab her property by them. She was
even thrown out of the house and her daughter, who was residing away, had given shelter to her. It is revealed that due to the compulsion of the petitioners she had to execute a document in
favour of the 2nd petitioner. But he had totally neglected to maintain her and hence the document was cancelled by the RDO on a complaint by the deceased. Thereafter she was taken to the house of her daughter and she was residing there. After sometime, the 2nd petitioner came there and took her to her own house agreeing to
maintain her. But thereafter also she was subjected to severe cruelty. There are startling revelation regarding the cruel treatment by the petitioners towards the deceased. She was not even permitted to talk to the neighbors and the relatives were restrained from entering into the house. Her mobile phone
was also destroyed by the 1st petitioner with the intention to put an end to her communication with her own daughter fearing that she will disclose the cruel treatment met by her. The statement of the immediate neighbor would reveal that the deceased was beaten by the petitioners quite often and once thrown out to the courtyard causing serious injuries. The deceased was an educated lady and for her communication to the outside world she had written certain letters and kept it in a tin and thrown to the courtyard of her immediate neighbor to enable her to handover those letters to her daughter so as to inform her about the cruelty she was facing. So, the immediate neighbor took photographs of the letters and sent to the daughter of the deceased through Whats app. The letters available in the CD file would show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. They have compelled her to execute a will deed in favour of the 2 nd petitioner and the CD would reveal that such a document was executed. On the fateful day, the lady who is residing nearby heard the hue and cry of the deceased during night and she informed the same to the daughter of the deceased who promised to
come and visit her mother in the morning. But in the morning, the mother was found dead. The inquest and postmortem report would show that the deceased was murdered by someone as the death was due to manual strangulation. The CD file reveals a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. The investigating agency has to collect more materials to proceed with the
investigation and such being the state of affairs, if the petitioners are released on bail, the entire prosecution case will be affected adversely. If they are released before
the filing of the final report, there is every chance to flee from justice, intimidate and influence the prosecution witnesses and to win
over them and thus to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. As the investigation is only in the preliminary stage, and the complicity of these petitioners are revealed
from the CD file produced by the prosecution, I think that the request of the learned counsel that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail is only to be discarded. The fact that the couple are having minor children is not at all a ground to release them as the investigation is in the midway. Hence I am compelled to conclude that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb