Antony V.V.Vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A, J

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime, No. 1018/2022 of Thoppumpady Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 203, 302, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is as follows: the petitioners are the husband and wife. The deceased is the grandmother of the 2nd accused. On 29.11.2022, at about 10.00 a.m, when the 2nd accused had gone for the job after entrusting her 5 month old baby with the deceased, there occurred a quarrel between the 1st accused and the deceased, as the deceased questioned the 1st accused for not going to work. Because of this, the 1st accused pulled the defacto complainant from the kitchen to the courtyard, resulting in a head injury on hitting her head on a concrete slab. By then, the 2nd accused reached there and the deceased started making noise. At that juncture, the 2nd petitioner covered her mouth, and the 1st accused assaulted the deceased repeatedly and which resulted in causing serious injuries to her. Consequent to such injuries, she died and the crime was registered in such circumstances. As part of the investigation, the 1st accused was arrested on 13.11.2022, and the 2nd accused was arrested on 01.12.2022. Since then, they have been under judicial detention. This application is submitted in such circumstances.

Heard, Sri. M.R Xavier Jess, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha. S, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. They have been in custody for the past more than six months. Now, the investigation is completed and the final report has been filed. Therefore, there is no purpose in keeping the petitioners under judicial detention, contends the learned Counsel. They are prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall cooperate with the trial. As regards the 2nd petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that, along with the 2nd accused, there is also an 11 months old baby and continued incarnation of the 2nd petitioner would cause serious prejudice to her and the baby.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that very serious allegations are raised against the petitioners. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the materials that could be collected by the prosecution during the course of the investigation would reveal that multiple injuries were inflicted upon the victim, by the 1st petitioner which led to her death. Both The petitioners are having antecedents also, as both of them were involved in Crime No. 736/2017 of Arthunkal Police Station,. which was registered for assaulting the mother of the 1st petitioner. The offences alleged in the said crime are under Section 341, 294b, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the granting of bail.

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from both sides. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the allegations raised against the petitioners are serious in nature. From the postmortem report, it is evident that the victim sustained 12 ante-mortem injuries. The aforesaid injuries are on the head, face and ribs. The aforesaid injuries would show that the deceased was subjected to brutal attack. The specific allegation of the prosecution case is that, the 1st petitioner inflicted the aforesaid injuries and the 2nd petitioner aided the 1st petitioner in committing the same. The materials produced by the prosecution include the criminal antecedents of the petitioners as well. In such circumstances, taking note of the serious nature of the allegations, and the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, I am of the view that, the release of the 1st petitioner at this stage may not be proper. This is mainly because, the overt acts which resulted in the injuries, are alleged against the 1st petitioner. While taking this view, I have considered the fact that the witnesses in this case are the neighbours of the accused persons and the chances of influencing and intimidating them cannot be ruled out. However, as regards the 2nd petitioner, a different yardstick can be applied. This is particularly because, even as per the prosecution case, the injuries were allegedly inflicted by the 1st accused. Besides the same, the 2nd accused has to take care of a baby aged 11 months old. In such circumstances, considering the limited role of the 2nd petitioner in the commission of the crime and also the fact that she is a woman who has to take care of a baby, I deem it appropriate to take a lenient view as regards the 2nd petitioner.

In such circumstances, the prayer for bail made by the 1st petitioner is dismissed and the 2nd petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m every Wednesday for two months.

iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.