Kerala High Court
Bhoopendra Rawat @ Bhuvendra vs The State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.3564 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 190/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 13/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU
CRIME NO.20/2020 OF Kumily Police Station , Idukki
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 BHOOPENDRA RAWAT @ BHUVENDRA,
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ARJUN,
SARALKHATT, PACHADI VILLAGE,
MURIANA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH.
2 AMAR SINGH RAVAL @ AMAR SINGH,
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SURESH,
HURKHOON VILLAGE, SHIYOPPOOR DISTRICT,
MADHYA PRADESH.
BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KUMILY POLICE STATION, KUMILY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 509.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3564 of 2020
-2-
O R D E R
Dated this the 18th day of June 2020 The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.20/2020 of Kumily Police Station, which is presently pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade as C.P.No.7/2020 for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is thus:
The petitioners are manual migrant workers from Madhya Pradesh. The deceased Kamal Das, was also a similar worker from Assam. The petitioners and deceased were residing in the same building on the 1 st and 2nd floors respectively. They were all engaged in the construction work of Govt.VHSS, Kumily.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.01.2020 at about 1.30 PM, the petitioners and the deceased were all engaged in a drunken brawl and in consequent to which, the deceased allegedly provoked the petitioners, as a result of which, they caught him, assaulted him and smashed his head on the wall, resulting in multiple fracture on the skull bone, causing his death. The petitioners did not thereafter do anything to give medical aid to him would indicate that they had the B.A.No.3564 of 2020 -3- intention to cause death. The petitioners were arrested on 13.01.2020 and witnesses were examined by the police and their statements recorded, in which they have clearly stated that it was the petitioners who had done the deceased to death in a brutal manner.
4. Heard Sri.Tom Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Counsel Sri.Tom Thomas submits that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents, they are willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed and the alleged crime is falsely foisted against them for the reason that their employer had some adversaries and that their employer had approached the High Court for reliefs against those adversaries, who had instigated the police to foist a false case against the petitioners in order to wreak vengeance against their employees. The manner in which the accused were implicated in order to wreak vengeance against their employer seems to be a very remote possibility. However, the fact remains that the police have taken the statements of the witnesses, who have seen the incident. The manner in which the alleged murder was carried out appears to be very brutal. The postmortem report would indicate the multiple fracture sustained to the skull of the deceased and that would also indicate that his head was smashed repeatedly on the wall with the B.A.No.3564 of 2020 -4- specific intention to commit murder. Whether the petitioners had intention or whether it was justified by sudden provocation, as alleged by the learned Counsel appearing for them, is a matter of evidence and that cannot be determined at this stage of bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are wanderers and they do not have any permanent place of abode, and in case they are released on bail, there is every possibility that they may abscond and never available for trial. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contradicts the same by stating that they have Aadhaar cards, which indicate that they have permanent place of abode and that they would also provide local sureties for being released on bail. It is pertinent to note that when the liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution is weighed with the detention of the accused for the purpose of trial, it would indicate that the brutal manner in which the crime was perpetrated far outweighs the liberty enshrined in Article 21. Moreover, the detention of an accused during the course of trial, cannot said to be infringement of his liberty, because it is the detention as authorised by law. The final report has been filed by the police without any delay. I am sure that after the case is posted for trial, earnest attempts would be made by the trial Court to see that the trial concludes and reaches its logical conclusion, at the B.A.No.3564 of 2020 -5- earliest. With these observations, the Bail Application is disposed of giving the petitioners the liberty to apply afresh for bail in case any unreasonable delay is caused in the conclusion of the trial.
Sd/-
dkr ASHOK MENON
JUDGE