Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused Booked For Brutally Murdering 7-Yr-Old Boy, Says He Was Deliberately Protracting Trial
The Kerala High Court ruled that the accused who was deliberately protracting the trial was not entitled to bail.The petitioner, who is accused of allegedly brutally attacking and murdering the 7-year-old minor son of the woman he was living with after her husband's death has approached the Court with a bail application. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan dismissed the bail application and stated that...
The Kerala High Court ruled that the accused who was deliberately protracting the trial was not entitled to bail.
The petitioner, who is accused of allegedly brutally attacking and murdering the 7-year-old minor son of the woman he was living with after her husband's death has approached the Court with a bail application.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan dismissed the bail application and stated that the accused has to face the trial in custody. The Court held:
“Moreover, if there are prima facie materials to prove that, an accused is deliberately protracting the trial, he is not entitled to bail as of right. The general principle of bail in law, that is, 'Bail is the rule and jail is an exception' is not applicable to such accused. The right to bail is not absolute. The court has to consider the bail application based on the facts of each case, of course keeping in mind the general principle that, 'Bail is the rule and jail is an exception'. In this case, there are prima facie materials in the light of the report of the trial court and also from the submission of the prosecution that the petitioner is deliberately protracting the trial. Hence he is not entitled to bail.”
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner (1st accused) and 2nd accused fell in love and started to live together after the husband of the second accused passed away due to a heart attack. The second accused and her husband had two minor boys.
It is alleged that the petitioner got angry with the minor boy for not looking after his younger brother who urinated in his trousers at midnight when the petitioner and the second accused went outside. The petitioner allegedly kicked, lifted and smashed the deceased victim boy on the floor, gave a blow to his head using a dumbbell and threw him towards the wall. It is alleged that the petitioner stamped on the head, dragged the minor boy and hit his head on the cot with intent to cause his death.
It is also alleged that the petitioner hit the second accused when she tried to intervene and that he delayed the treatment of the minor boy which resulted in his death. The alleged incident took place in March 2019.
Thus, the crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, 506(i), 302, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The bail application is sought stating that there is no one to look after his mother and that he is also suffering from different illnesses requiring medical attention. The petitioner also stated that he has been in jail since 2019 and that he has been in custody for 5 years.
The Court noted that the second accused who became an approver and the younger child are witnesses in the case. It stated that they are vulnerable and could be threatened and influenced by the petitioner if he is released on bail.
The Court stated that the continuation of the petitioner in custody was irrelevant since he was convicted by the POCSO Court for 21 years of imprisonment and there was no suspension of his sentence. The Court further stated that the petitioner has a brother who can take care of their mother.
The Court noted that the accused adjourned the case several times by engaging different counsels at different times. The Court noted that the who was well versed in Malayalam had adjourned the case seeking translated copies of documents and had been delaying the trial by not engaging a counsel and by denying legal aid. It also noted that the accused was deliberately delaying the commencement of the trial and was not ready to cooperate with the Court to conduct the trial.
The Court observed that the accused was intentionally trying to delay the trial. The Court stated that the allegations against the petitioner are serious, disturbing the conscience of society. The Court said, “The allegation in this case really affected the conscience of the entire society in Kerala. But of course, it is a matter to be proved by the prosecution by adducing evidence.”
As such, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and dismissed his bail application.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate K Rakesh
Counsel for Respondents: ADGP Grashiouse Kuriakose
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 6068 OF 2024
Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Click here to Read/Download Order