Kerala High Court
Sooraj S.Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 6 November, 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
FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7257 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1540/2020 OF Anchal Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER:
SOORAJ S.KUMAR
AGED 27 YEARS
SON OF SURENDRA PANICKER,
RESIDING AT SREE SOORYA,
KARAKKAL JUNCTION, PARAKKODE MURI,
ADOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
pin-691523
BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682031
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7257 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.7257 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in SC No.820 of 2020 on the files of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam. The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 302 and 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner married Uthra, the sister of charge witness No.2, a differently abled lady on 25.3.2018 with the object of financial gain. After the child was born in the wedlock, the accused who was dissatisfied with the mental and physical disability of Uthra, conspired to kill Uthra. According to the prosecution, the B.A.No.7257 of 2020 3 accused obtained a snake from the 2nd accused and he committed murder of Uthra by causing venomous snake bite to her. According to the prosecution, his attempt succeeded on the third attempt.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that final report is already filed and charge is also framed. The counsel submitted that the petitioner want to consult his lawyer for defending the case. The counsel submitted that he may be given interim bail at least for one week so that he can consult the lawyer. The counsel submitted that a fair trial is necessary for which the accused should be given such a benefit. The counsel submitted that this is a serious case in which the prosecution allege that the petitioner committed murder of his own wife. In such situation, the consultation of a lawyer is necessary. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be given an opportunity to consult the lawyer.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail B.A.No.7257 of 2020 4 application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a serious case in which close relative of the accused are the witnesses. If the petitioner is released on bail even for a day, the Public Prosecutor submitted that he will try to influence the witnesses. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the relatives and neighbours of the petitioner are the main witnesses in this case. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not release the petitioner on bail.
7. When this case came up for consideration on 05.11.2020, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he will get a detailed report from the investigating officer based on the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the matter was heard again. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is limiting his prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to meet his counsel at least for three days from morning to evening in the office of the advocate because the advocate is not in a position to visit the jail to meet the client because of the pandemic situation.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same also. B.A.No.7257 of 2020 5 The learned Public Prosecutor made available a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kollam Rural dated 05.11.2020, in which it is stated that the jail accused and defence counsel can interact through video conferencing as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is objected by the counsel for the petitioner because an interaction directly between the accused and the lawyer is necessary for the purpose of studying the case by the counsel. In such situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to allow the accused to meet his counsel during day time for three days.
9. Three main contentions are raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the final report is filed and the continued detention in this case is not necessary. I cannot accept this. This is a fit case in which the accused should face trial in detention. It is submitted that the trial is scheduled to start from 01.12.2020 onwards. Therefore, there is no question of releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage. I considered the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor B.A.No.7257 of 2020 6 and the report dated 05.11.2020 of the investigating officer. As I stated earlier, serious allegations are alleged against the petitioner. There was continuous attempt on the part of the petitioner to murder his own wife using the venum of a snake. He succeeded in this attempt, according to the prosecution on the third occasion. Moreover, the witnesses cited in the case are close relatives of the petitioner and his neighbours. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a chance for influencing the witnesses. The apprehension of the prosecution has to be accepted.
10. But, I cannot reject the contention of the petitioner regarding the prayer for consultation with his lawyer. Fair trial is the right of an accused. Every accused has got a right to get legal assistance before trial. The offences alleged against the petitioner includes the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The capital punishment also can be imposed if the petitioner is convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. In such circumstances, when the petitioner submit before this Court that he want to consult his lawyer to discuss his case, this B.A.No.7257 of 2020 7 Court cannot deny the same. Therefore, there can be a direction to the jail authorities to produce the petitioner before the office of the lawyer for a period of three days continuously from 10.00am to 5.00pm starting from 13.11.2020 to 15.11.2020. The petitioner can file a petition before the trial court for this purpose. The trial court will pass appropriate orders as directed above. The premises from where the petitioner want to meet his lawyer should be specifically mentioned in the petition to be filed before the trial court. If such a petition is received by the trial court, the trial court will allow the same as directed above.
With this direction, this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE cms/DK