Habeebulla vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.12/2023 on the file of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 449,341,323,325,326,392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution case is that, on 4.1.2023 at about 9 a.m., the petitioner, with the intention to commit robbery, trespassed into the house of the victim, a lady, and while committing theft of gold ornaments, murdered the victim by smothering. The petitioner was arrested from the spot as he was apprehended by the people gathered. Since then, ie. from 4.1.2023, he has been under judicial detention. Even though the petitioner had earlier filed applications for bail before the Sessions Court on two occasions, both were rejected, and this application is filed in such circumstances.

Heard Sri.T.N.Jayadevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. It is pointed out that, even as per the materials placed by the prosecution, it cannot be concluded that the murder was allegedly committed by the petitioner with a pre-meditation. Now, more than six months have elapsed since his date of arrest. The counsel submits that the final report is already submitted, and there is no purpose in keeping the petitioner in detention any longer. This application is submitted in such circumstances.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the said application. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary and, by relying on the materials contained therein, contends that there is ample evidence indicating the complicity of the petitioner. According to him, it was a willful act committed for the purpose of taking away the gold ornaments from the deceased, who was living alone in the said house. The petitioner came to the victim's property with the intention to commit murder and robbery, and therefore the release of the petitioner was opposed.

The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had any intention to commit the murder, even as per the prosecution records. On careful scrutiny of the case diary produced, the said contention of the learned counsel cannot be simply brushed aside. It appears that it was not a pre-meditated assault. Apparently, the death of the victim occurred when the petitioner attempted to suppress the voice of the victim during the course of committing the robbery. The petitioner allegedly covered the face of the victim by using a piece of cloth for silencing the victim, and the death occurred during such time. The petitioner was also not involved in any other cases. Now the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 4.1.2023, and more than six months have elapsed. The investigation in this case is already over and the final report has been submitted. The trial of the said case is likely to take some time. In such circumstances, taking note of the entire aspects of the matter, further incarceration of the petitioner appears to be not necessary.

In such circumstances, the petitioner can be released on bail with stringent conditions to ensure that the petitioner does not influence or intimidate any of the witnesses. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed with 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 for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when required.

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

iv) 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.

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

vi) The petitioner shall surrender the passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner does not have the passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be submitted.

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