Abdul Azeez vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable u/s 302 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 272/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.6.2013 petitioner had taken the deceased and her children along with sister of the deceased to Shivanasamudram and had reached the house on 26.6.2013 at about 7.00 p.m. The deceased requested the petitioner to get packed food for night meals from restaurant and accordingly, the petitioner got them food. Thereafter, deceased sought for money for the next day home expenses for which, petitioner has convinced the deceased that he has spent all the money and will give her soon after he earns and went away from the house. Thereafter after sometime, petitioner returned home, left the children at his parents house and at about 11.00 p.m. once again there was a quarrel between himself and his wife when he went home and petitioner on becoming furious, strangulated the neck of the deceased with a plastic rope.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no witnesses on the side of the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution relies upon the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before C.Ws. 4 and 5. The statement of C.W. 5 appears to be most unnatural that he has kept his mobile shop open until 1.15 a.m. Even the medical report is not supporting the case of the prosecution that it is a homicidal strangulation committed by the present petitioner. Since from the date of arrest, he is in custody. He has to take care of his children. The investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the statement of C.Ws. 4 and 5 and also the daughter of the deceased goes to show that petitioner has made extra judicial confession stating that he himself has caused the death of the deceased by using plastic rope and strangulating her, which shows that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Even the opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death supports the case of the prosecution. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other charge sheet material.

The statements of C.Ws. 4 and 5 goes to show that the petitioner has appeared before them and made the extra judicial confession narrating the incident and the quarrel between himself and his wife and then he committing the murder of his wife. Thereafter, both C.Ws. 4 and 5 told him that he has to appear before the police and accordingly, took him to the police station. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of C.W. 5 that he was working in the mobile shop till 1.15 a.m. appears to be most unnatural, this is not the stage for the Court to consider the said contention. While considering the bail application the Court has to see the prima facie material for the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. While considering the bail application the Court is not required to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case. The opinion of the doctors also goes to show the cause of death is due to strangulation. When this much material is available on record, it shows prima facie, the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Not only that the death has taken place in the house of the present petitioner, who is the husband who is also responsible and accountable as to how the death has taken place. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercises the discretion in favour of the present petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.