Gurumoorthy R vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.678 of 2020 of Malappuram Police Station, which is now pending as C.P.No.95 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution, one Sri.Venkittaraman was found lying on the main road in Malappuram District on 14.11.2020 and was later declared dead. The investigation revealed that petitioner and other accused had committed the murder of the said Venkittaraman. Petitioner was initially granted bail. However, when the case was taken up for committal proceedings, petitioner failed to appear, despite summons and therefore, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the summons to the petitioner was never served and he was unaware about the posting of the case for committal. It was also submitted that had the petitioner been aware about the summons, he would have certainly appeared before Court.

Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that petitioner had wilfully evaded from appearing before the court and therefore cancellation of the bail was justified. It was further submitted that summons was duly served on the petitioner and hence, the contention now advanced are all reasons subsequently raised for getting bail.

On 23.05.2023, this Court called for a report regarding the service of summons on the petitioner. By communication dated 25.05.2023, the learned Magistrate has informed that on 23.11.2022, summons was issued to the accused. As per the report of the Inspector of Police, Malappuram, summons was served on the petitioner by affixure on the house where he was residing. It is thereafter that since the petitioner did not appear, non-bailable warrant was issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were initiated against him. The photocopy of the summons issued to the petitioner as also the notice of affixure of the summons have been enclosed.

It is evident from the records now produced that petitioner's contention that he was not served with the summons is not legally acceptable since there is apparently a service by affixure. However, having regard to the fact that petitioner was arrested after cancelling his bail on 23.03.2023, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner need not be permitted and the petitioner can be released on bail on strict conditions.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only ) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall attend the court without fail.

(c) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case and shall also file an affidavit providing the mobile number of the petitioner as well as that of his wife.

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.