Kerala High Court
Biraju vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1027 of 2019
CRIME NO. 287/2018 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIRAJU, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O KUMARAN, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, CHENGALUR VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT.RESMI THOMAS
SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUKLAM, PIN-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T. R. RENJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:1027/2019 2
ORDER
This application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the accused in Crime No.287 of 2018 of the Pudukkad Police Station, registered under Sections 302 and 212 of the IPC.
2. The wife of the applicant was doused with Kerosene after chasing her in open road and was set ablaze in front of her father and the general public. The poor lady had come to attend a Kudumbasree meeting near to the residence of the applicant. The victim suffered serious burn injuries. The injured was initially taken to the Chalakkudy Government Hospital from where, she was referred to the Medical College. Her dying declaration was recorded by the learned Magistrate after ascertaining her competence to furnish such a declaration. Her life could not be saved and she was pronounced dead at 23.35 hrs on 30.4.2018. Based on the information furnished by the father of the deceased, the subject crime was registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that this is the third application filed by the applicant. His earlier BA:1027/2019 3 applications were dismissed by this Court on 10.8.2018 and 5.12.2018. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has been undergoing incarceration from 3.5.2018 onwards and the final report having been laid, it is prayed that he be released on bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that there has been no change in circumstances. The murder was perpetrated in broad day light and in the most heinous manner possible. The materials against the applicant including the dying declaration given by the deceased was highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the applicant had fled to Bombay immediately after the incident and he was arrested from the said city on 3.5.2018. The witnesses are the neighbours and near relatives of the applicant and if he is released on bail at this stage, there is a reasonable possibility that he would influence them and tamper with the evidence and reduce the whole proceeding to an empty exercise.
5. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials made available.
6. The earlier bail applications filed by the applicant was BA:1027/2019 4 dismissed after considering the entire facts and circumstances and also the apprehension expressed by the prosecution. There has been no change in circumstances. Several eye witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and they all reside near to the house of the accused. In that view of the matter, the fear expressed by the prosecution that the applicant herein would use his liberty to subvert justice and tamper with the evidence cannot be ignored. Being in custody for an extended period is not a ground for release on bail, particularly in cases which involve grave offences (see Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [(2012) 9 SCC 446].
7. After considering the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in the case of conviction, the stage at which the investigation has reached, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution of the possibility of tampering with the evidence and the witnesses, the position and the status of the accused person with reference to the victim and the witnesses, I am not inclined to allow this application. As the petitioner is an under-trial prisoner, I direct the court below to expedite the trial proceedings and take the matter BA:1027/2019 5 to its logical conclusion at the earliest.
This application will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE