Selvaraj @ Suresh vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2171 of 2021 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He faces an indictment for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal the Code,1860. Through the present application, petitioner seeks for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The prosecution case is that petitioner committed the murder of his wife on 31.08.2021 at around 4.30 pm by inflicting a stab injury on the neck of the deceased.

Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution case is totally false and the petitioner is innocent of the crime. Even though the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was suffering from psychosis and was admitted in the mental hospital subsequent to the  alleged  offence,  during  the  course  of  arguments, he retracted the said contentions and submitted that petitioner is not claiming the benefit of mental condition for the purpose of this bail application. It was pointed out that in the bail application filed before the learned Sessions Judge, a report was called for from the Jail Superintendent, who had informed that there were no psychotic features at present and the medical conditions require treatment at a medical hospital with tertiary facilities.

A statement has been filed by the Station House Officer pointing out that petitioner is alleged to have committed a very serious offence and that he is indicted for an offence of planned murder committed on his wife. According to the statement, the accused was arrested on 01.09.2021 and has been in custody since then. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence have been recovered and the postmortem report refers to death due to incised injury sustained on the neck of the deceased. It was also pointed out that the final report has already been filed. As regards the mental condition of the petitioner, it was pointed out that an enquiry was conducted in the mental hospital based upon the information and the RMO stated that petitioner does not have an psychiatric history and has not been subjected to any psychiatric treatment prior to the commission of crime apart from pointing out that he was admitted in the mental hospital for a short period while under judicial custody. The respondent also pointed out that though the final report has already been filed, grant of bail would threaten and influence the witnesses and that there is every chance of the petitioner even absconding.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner initially relied upon the mental condition of the petitioner, on the basis of the statement filed by the respondent, he withdrew those contentions and submitted that petitioner does not intend to pursue the said contention at this stage for this bail application.

On a perusal of the case diary, it is noticed that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime and was arrested on the date of incident itself, i.e. 01.09.2021. However, there are no criminal antecedents or any history of criminal activity against the petitioner. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was not on good terms and they were living separately. The nature of injury caused on the body of the deceased indicates a single stab injury. Though there is a second injury, the same is a very superficial injury of 0.1 cm in depth.

Reckoning the long detention of the petitioner from 01.09.2021 onwards and having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not essential, provided sufficient safeguards are imposed to avoid prejudice to the prosecution case.

Accordingly, I allow this bail application and direct the petitioner to be released on the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

(e) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, until conclusion of trial.

(f) The petitioner shall not contact any of the witnesses.

(g) The petitioner shall not leave the State or the Country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.