VINODKUMAR & ANR vs STATE OF KERALA

This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.1462 of 2017 of the Kottayam East Police Station. They are accused of

having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and section 201 read with section 34 of IPC.

The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. He was the accused in a Crime involving offence punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC and was in judicial custody for a substantial period. While he was in custody, the 2nd petitioner became close to one Santhosh Philipose, the

deceased in this case, who was a nearby resident. Somehow or the other, this illicit relationship came to the notice of the 1st petitioner herein.

After his release on bail, he started residing with the 2nd petitioner and their minor children. In order to do away with the aforesaid Santhosh, the

1st petitioner directed the 2nd petitioner to call him over to their residential home. As directed by the 1st petitioner, the deceased was invited and it

is alleged that he was done to death in the most brutal manner possible. The deceased was cut into pieces and his body parts were filled in sacks

and thrown to the neighboring property. He was decapitated and his head was taken to a distant place and was thrown into a water body. On

27.8.2017, based on the information furnished by a Panchayat member, the Crime was registered. Further investigation revealed that Santhosh

Philipose was missing from 23.8.2017 and his relatives identified his body. Later, investigation revealed that the last calls to the mobile of the

deceased were from the 2nd petitioner. Investigation finally led to the arrest of the petitioners herein. Based on the disclosure statements furnished

by the petitioners, the head of the deceased as well as the weapons which were used for committing the offence were seized. After completion of

investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. The petitioners were arrested on 23.8.2017 and

29.8.2017 respectively and it is prayed that they may now be released on bail. It is urged with much vehemence that the 2nd petitioner is totally

innocent. The specific motive for doing away with the deceased is the relationship which he had with the 2nd petitioner while the 1st petitioner was

undergoing incarceration. She was held at knife point and was forced to call the deceased. It is further submitted that the prosecution has no case

that the 2nd petitioner had used any weapon. The entire acts were perpetrated by the 1st petitioner and it is prayed that a lenient view be taken

insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned.

The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the crime is so gruesome and abhorrent that the

release of the petitioners on bail would send a wrong message to the society. It is a case in which a young man was minced to pieces and his body

parts were thrown away. Investigation till date points to the definite involvement of both the petitioners. The plea of innocence raised by the 2nd

petitioner cannot be accepted is the submission.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary.

Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the allegations are so grave that he is not entitled to be released on bail. He was on bail when the

murder in the instant case was allegedly committed. The brutal manner in which the offence was committed reveals the inhuman nature of the 1st

petitioner. The same cannot be said about the 2nd petitioner. She was forced to call the deceased and being fearful of the 1st petitioner, she had

obliged. Though she was allegedly with the 1st petitioner all through, her role is comparatively minor. True, the head which was decapitated was

recovered at her instance and it was the 2nd petitioner who had called up the victim. Whether she was threatened to do all these acts or as to

whether she was acting in concert cannot be dealt with at this stage. Her further incarceration in the instant case does not appear to be warranted

as the investigation is complete and final report has already been laid. The prosecution has no case that it would be difficult to secure her presence

at the stage of trial. Having considered all the relevant facts, I am of the considered view that the 2nd petitioner can now be enlarged on bail.

In the result, this petition will stand partly allowed. The petition filed by the 1st petitioner will stand dismissed. The 2nd petitioner is granted bail.

However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). The second petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

2). The second petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence.

3). The second petitioner shall not commit any offence while she is on bail.

4). The second petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned 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.