Priyarenjan vs State Of Kerala

Sophy Thomas, J

This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the sole accused in crime No.1373 of 2023 of Kattakada police station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Section 302 of IPC.

The prosecution allegation is that, due to the enmity that the victim boy Adisekhar, aged 15 years, questioned the accused, when he urinated in the temple premises, the accused, with his intention to do away with that boy, on 30.08.2023, while the boy was playing with his friends (CWs 2 to 4) in the temple compound, waited near the temple compound, in KL 19N 6957 car, and when the victim boy was returning home in his bicycle, he started his car and drove it towards the bicycle of the victim boy and knocked him down. When the boy fell down on the road along with the bicycle, he ran the car over the body of the victim boy, by which the boy sustained severe head injuries. After the incident, the accused stopped his car across the road so as to prevent the victim boy from being taken to hospital. Later he was taken to Neyyar Medicity hospital where his death was confirmed.

The mother of the victim was impleaded as additional respondent as per order in Crl.M.A No.1 of 2024.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for additional 2nd respondent/mother of the victim, and also learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for additional 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application stating that, it was a pre-planned, cold blooded murder of a 15 year old boy. The CCTV visuals will show that, the petitioner was waiting for the victim boy, near to the spot in his car, for half an hour. After playing in the temple compound along with his friends, the victim boy was returning home in his bicycle. Then the petitioner deliberately knocked him down, using his car. When he fell down on the road along with his bicycle, the petitioner ran the car over his body, whereby the boy suffered severe head injuries to which he succumbed.

Prosecution has got another case that, in order to prevent the boy from being taken to hospital, after the incident, the petitioner stopped the car on the middle of the road, so that other vehicles could not reach near, to take the boy to hospital.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is absolutely innocent of this crime. It was a mere road traffic accident, in which the victim boy lost his life. Originally, crime No.1373 of 2023 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Wife of the petitioner was working abroad and just before the incident, he was interacting with his wife over phone, and thereafter he was in a disturbed mood. While driving the car, it accidentally hit on the bicycle ridden by the victim boy. As the petitioner was upset due to the incident, he could not react normally. Only when the media published an edited version of the video footage of the incident, police incorporated additional offences against him. The video footage of the accident would show that, after the accident the petitioner was running towards the child, for taking him to hospital with the help of other people. He had no enmity towards the child, as alleged by the prosecution. He is in judicial custody from 12.09.2023 onwards. Investigation is over and final report has been filed. So, his continued custody is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I [2012 (1) KLT SN 36 (C No.40) SC] in which the Apex Court held that ‘the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty’.

On going through the facts of the case in Sanjay Chandra cited above, it was a case of cheating by fraudulent transfer of shares by companies, which may jeopardize the economy of the country, and not a case like the one on hand, where the allegation is that an young boy was brutally killed in a calculated and pre-planned manner.

In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], the Apex Court detailed the matters to be considered in an application for bail, as follows:

“(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”.

In the case on hand, the prosecution allegations prima facie suggest that, it was a pre-planned calculated murder committed by the petitioner due to his enmity towards the victim child, that the boy questioned him when he urinated in the temple compound. The CCTV visuals suggest that for half an hour prior to the incident, the petitioner was waiting with his car in the road, and when the boy reached the road with his bicycle, he drove the car towards the boy, and knocked him down. That also is suggestive of the fact that, the petitioner was waiting for the boy near the spot.

True that, while considering an application for bail, there is no need for detailed examination of the evidence. But, when the offence alleged is very serious, involving deep rooted planning, and execution in a calculated manner, the courts cannot keep a blind eye towards such inhuman activities, especially towards a little boy. The nature of accusation in this case and the severity of punishment in case of conviction prevents this Court from releasing the petitioner on bail at least till the material witnesses are examined in the Sessions Case.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that, investigation is over and final report has been filed and it is pending as SC No.216 of 2024. The final report shows that, there are 74 witnesses in the charge sheet, of which CWs 1 to 26 are material witnesses having direct knowledge about the incident and its motive.

If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance for him to influence or intimidate the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence, and his presence in the society itself may be a source of danger or rather fear for the witnesses, which may prevent them from stating the truth before court. So, this Court is of the view that, the petitioner shall not be released on bail, till the material witnesses (CWs 1 to 26) in SC No.216 of 2024 are examined. If the petitioner is making an application for bail before the trial court after completing examination of the material witnesses, the learned trial Judge can consider such application and pass appropriate orders on merit, taking into account the situations prevailing then.

With this direction, above application stands dismissed.