Kerala High Court
Sanal Aged 39 Years vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.5072 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1070/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANAL AGED 39 YEARS ,
S/O SATHI , MACHINANDU
,KIZHYAKEEKARA VEETTIL
THACHOTTUKAVU , MALAYINKEEZHU
THIRUVANTHAPURAM 695571
695571
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO.5072 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 17th day of August 2020 ...
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1070 of 2020 of Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the deceased Shinymol is the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the Shinymol was solemnized in the year, 2014. Subsequently, they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. From the early days of marriage, the petitioner ill-treated her mentally and physically. On 12.7.2020, the petitioner assaulted Shinymol and abetted her to commit suicide. Due to B.A. NO.5072 OF 2020 3 the abatement from the part of the petitioner, on the same day at 11 p.m. she poured kerosene over her body and set fire to herself. Subsequently, she died on 17.7.2020 at 11.40 a.m.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 22.7.2020. The counsel submitted that, even if the entire allegation is accepted, no offnce under Section 306 IPC is made out. The counsel submitted that, there is no abatement to commit suicide from the part of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, his wife committed suicide because of some sudden provocation for which the petitioner is not responsible. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner was arrested only on B.A. NO.5072 OF 2020 4 22.7.2020. The public prosecutor submitted that, there is statements of two daughters of the deceased against the petitioner. The public prosecutor submitted that, the date on which his wife committed suicide, there was specific assault from the side of the petitioner. The public prosecutor submitted that there is dying declaration from the deceased. The public prosecutor submitted that, this Court may not release him on bail at this stage.
7. After hearing both sides, according to me, this is not a fit case, in which the bail can be granted at this stage. Serious allegations are there against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested only on 22.7.2020. The allegation against the petitioner includes an assault on the deceased just before she committed suicide. According to the prosecution, there are statements of the children of the petitioner also against him. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, the petitioner is not entitled B.A. NO.5072 OF 2020 5 orders under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage.
8. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272). The Apex Court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while considering the application for bail.
(i) Nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) Reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
B.A. NO.5072 OF 2020 6
(iv) Character, behaviour and
standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) Larger interest of the public
or the State and similar other
considerations.
It is true that, there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that, this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
pkk JUDGE