Kerala High Court
Sherin V.John vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2020
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
BA No.1913/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1913 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1123/2016 OF Chengannoor Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHERIN V.JOHN
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.JOY V.JOHN, AZHARMANGALAM MURI, CHENGANNUR
P.O., CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-
689121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.1913/2020 .2.
O R D E R
Dated this the 16th day of July 2020 The applicant herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1123/2016 of Chengannoor Police Station for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on 25/5/2016 at about 4.45 p.m., accused committed murder of his father, using a pistol, dismembered his body parts and threw it at different places. Crime was registered and in the course of investigation, accused was arrested on 30/5/2016. He is in custody since then. After investigation, final report was laid and the matter is pending as SC No. 757/2016.
3. It seems that applicant filed bail applications successively which were all dismissed. Accused came up before this court by filing BA No.493/2019, which was disposed of by Annexure A order directing the court below to expeditiously dispose of the matter at the earliest. In the alternate, it was directed that after the crucial witness including the mother were examined, the accused could seek bail, since other witnesses were either official witnesses or independent witness not related to the accused.
4. Thereafter the accused filed Crl.MP.No.45/2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mavelikara, seeking bail which was dismissed BA No.1913/2020 3 by that court vide Annexure B order. Accused has approached this court seeking bail.
5. It was brought to the notice of this court that certain electronic documents have been sent for FSL examination and is pending the report. By order dated 23/6/2020 the Director, FSL was directed to expedite the examination and to give priority to the examination of the sample considering the fact that the accused is in jail. It has been informed that top priority will be given in examination. The prosecution shall pursue it and expedite the examination.
6. A report was called from the Additional District and Sessions court to inform the approximate time limit within which the matter can be taken up and disposed of. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mavelikara by his communication dated 10/7/2020 has informed that about 98 witnesses are to be examined and 100 documents apart from the material objects are produced . Considering the present situation wherein summons is not being served and warrant not being executed, the court has fixed an outer time limit of eight months for examining the crucial witnesses, who do not have any connection with the FSL report. Regarding the remaining witnesses, it is stated that they can be examined within two months thereafter on receipt of the FSL report and after supplying copies of the accused.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that BA No.1913/2020 4 applicant is languishing in jail for the last four years and there is no possibility of the trial commencing at the earliest. It was contended that unnecessary allegations have been raised against the applicant and his bail is being denied on the ground that it is a sensational murder. It was contended that even if the allegation of gruesome murder alleged by the prosecution is accepted, it can only be in relation to the act done on the dead body. The accused has a defence that he has been wrongly implicated because of the strained family relationship. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the mother alone is the crucial witness and all other witnesses are either official witness or have no direct knowledge regarding the incident.
8. The above are definitely matters which can be taken into consideration while appreciating the application for bail. The right of the accused should also be protected balancing with the interest of the prosecution. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the bail application.
10. Bail application is disposed of with a direction to complete the examination of the witnesses who are unconnected with the FSL report within eight months and the remaining witnesses connected with the FSL report within two months thereafter the receipt of the report.
11. However, it is made clear that immediately after the examination of the witness/witnesses, who have direct knowledge regarding the incident BA No.1913/2020 5 and are closely related to the accused and thereby possibly having emotional influence by the accused, applicant will be free to file application for bail. The court below shall consider the bail application independently on merits in the light of the contentions set up above by the learned counsel for the accused and untrammelled by any of the observations made by this court in any of the earlier proceedings.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE