Joshi vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

This is an application for regular bail.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.410 of 2014 of Vadakkekara Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 449, 302, 394 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had killed an aged couple and had robbed gold ornaments from them. It is alleged that the petitioner was acquainted with the son of the aged couple and thereby he earned their trust and entered their house with a chopper and killed them and robbed their gold ornaments.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally arrested in a case on 07.04.2014 and was released after obtaining statutory bail on 16.05.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner was away in connection with his employment thereafter and could not appear before the Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been subsequently arrested on 17.02.2021 and he is in custody since that date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application may be allowed with stringent conditions.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. He submits that after being released on statutory bail on 16.05.2015, the petitioner was absconding and did not appear before the Court on any subsequent date. It is submitted that following the investigation into the matter, a final report was filed before the Court in the year 2015 itself and owing to the fact that the petitioner was absconding, the matter was transferred to the long pending register. It is submitted that the petitioner was living in Malappuram under an assumed name, which clearly shows that he had an intention to abscond. It is submitted that the case against the petitioner is now pending as S.C.No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, North Paravur.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as it is clear that the petitioner had absconded after obtaining statutory bail on 16.05.2015. Nearly 6 years have passed and it cannot be said that the petitioner could not appear before the Court only on account of his employment. He had been living in Malappuram under an assumed name, which shows that he had a clear intention to abscond. The proceedings in the case were held up for all this while only on account of the fact that the petitioner was not available to face trial. In such circumstances, it will not be appropriate for this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

This application fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.