Santhosh Doddamane @ Santhu vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

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

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 477/2013 of Manjeswar Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that between 31.07.2013 at 6 hours and 02.08.2013 at 20.30 hours, a lady named Fulugamma hailing from Karnataka, was found murdered in a rented quarters at Hidayath Nagar at Uppala village. According to the police, it was the petitioner who murdered the said lady by strangulating her and robbing the money and gold ornaments belonging to her.

Initially, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation of the said case, and he was granted statutory bail on 23.11.2013, subject to certain conditions. Later the investigation in the said case was completed, and a final report was submitted. However, the petitioner absconded, and therefore the matter was included in the long pending register as L.P.C No. 21/2016 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 26.10.2022, and since then, he has been under judicial detention. The case has been refiled as S.C No. 618/2022, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod. This bail application is submitted in such circumstances.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner was working in Maharashtra, he could not appear before the court concerned and the matter was included in the long pending register in such circumstances.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid application. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person who managed to keep himself away from the clutches of the law for a period of about seven years, and he was arrested again with great difficulty. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond again. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is a person who is ordinarily residing in Karnataka, and it would be difficult for the police to trace out the petitioner if he again absconded.

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised by both sides.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application mainly on the ground of apprehension that he is likely to abscond in the event of his release. The aforesaid apprehension is based on the reason that, even though he was released on bail earlier, he absconded, and he could be arrested after the expiry of 7 years. Now the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.10.2022, and more than 100 days are over. As regards the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the same can be addressed by incorporating appropriate conditions. Merely because of the reason that the petitioner absconded once, it is not necessary to keep him under judicial custody until the trial of the said case is over. This is particularly because it is evident that the disposal of the matter is likely to take some time, and I do not find it proper to keep the petitioner under detention for the entire period.

In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

1) 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.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Manjeswar Police Station, between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every day until further orders.

3) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

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

5) 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.

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

7) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the trial Court, and in case the petitioner does not have the passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed by him before the trial court.

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