Human Sacrifice Case | Kerala High Court Dismisses Laila Bhagawal Singh's Bail Plea

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail application moved by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the accused in the Human Sacrifice Case.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that, 

The active involvement of the petitioner in the crime and in another crime is asserted by the prosecution and the materials collected, prima facie reveal her involvement in the present crime...Having regard to the circumstances of the case and also taking note of the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be released on bail.

The case pertains to the abduction, murder, and burial of a woman lottery vendor as part of a ritualistic sacrifice in the month of June by the three accused persons, namely, Muhammed Shafi alias Rasheed, Bhagaval Singh and his wife Laila.

When the matter was taken up previously, the Counsel appearing petitioner, Advocate Biju Antony Aloor, raised the contention that the petitioner was only a spectator of the incident and there is no direct evidence connecting her to the case. The Counsel further added that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only due to the undue publicity generated by the media and that there were no incriminating materials recovered against the petitioner to show her participation or involvement in the alleged crime.

The Counsel relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Nethra v. State of Karnataka, submitted that even if the entire prosecution story is admitted, the petitioner can only be regarded as a spectator to the alleged crime and that, as a woman, she ought to be given the benefit of the proviso to section 437 of the Cr.P.C.

However, Director General of Prosecution Advocate T. A. Shaji had strongly opposed the grant of bail contending that there is clearly an allegation of conspiracy and that the petitioner had an active role in the murder and materials have been gathered during investigation, revealing her involvement in the brutal murder, that too, as an active participant.

Furthermore, the Director General of Prosecution had also submitted before the Cout that the murder weapons were recovered based on the confessions made by the petitioner and that the victim's blood was found on the household articles and also expressed apprehension that if any accused are released, they might influence the witnesses as some of the witnesses are their relatives.

It was also pointed out that that the petitioner is also an accused in another crime of murdering another lady, on almost similar allegations of human sacrifice and had even indulged in cannibalism.

The Court after considering the contentions raised and perusing the case diary, observed that the circumstances, prima facie, reveal that petitioner had actively participated in the alleged crime and several materials have been recovered based on the statement given by the accused.

The Court further observed that contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that not a single item of recovery was effected based upon any statement given by the accused is incorrect, as evident from the records of the case. Whether those statements are admissible in evidence or not is a matter of appreciation, at the time of trial, the Court further added. 

Suffice to say, there are materials connecting the petitioner to the crime, atleast prima facie, the Court observed. 

The Court observed that the nature and gravity of the accusation are gruesome, apart from being shocking and the investigation is still continuing, and the final report has not yet been filed as on the date of hearing. Justice Thomas also pointed out that even though petitioner has been under detention since 11th October 2022, Petitioner and other accused are also alleged to have committed another crime in an almost identical manner, and the said case is also under investigation. Therefore, the Court observed that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that she may influence the witnesses. 

If bail is granted, there is the stark reality of justice being thwarted. Thus the circumstances do not lean in favour of the grant of bail to the petitioner, the Court added. 

Though the proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C provides for the grant of benefit to the woman while considering an application for bail, the Court pointed out that the words used in the statute is “court may”. The Court thus observed that the use of the word makes it explicit that the benefit to be given to a woman is not mandatory but discretionary and that the discretion continues to remain with the Court in the matter of grant of bail, even when the accused is a woman.

Merely because the accused is a woman, Court cannot ignore the other aspects like the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of influencing the witnesses, the likelihood of the offence being repeated and the danger of justice being thwarted. Though a beneficial provision as the first proviso, to section 437(1) Cr.P.C, is in existence, it does not mean that persons specified in the proviso should necessarily be released on bail.

The Court taking into note of the various circumstances of the case that are overwhelmingly leaning against the petitioner, observed that the benefit of the proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C which confers a a benefit to four different categories of persons, of which one category is women, cannot be exercised in the petitioner's favour.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and noting the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime, the Court observed that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be released on bail and thereby, dismissed the bail application. 

Case Title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 5

Click Here To Read/Download The Order