Kerala HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Stabbing Partner To Death, Says Bail Can't Be Granted When Alleged Offence 'Shakes Public Confidence'

Justice K Babu stated that there was no hard and fast rule in granting or refusing bail and each case had to be considered on its own merits. However, it stated that the Court cannot shut its eyes when the offences alleged were atrocious.

“In serious offences, the courts should not lightly entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case. Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule,” he said. 

The appellant was an accused in a crime registered under Section 302 (punishment for murder) IPC and Section 3 (2) (punishment for atrocities) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The allegation was that the appellant promised to marry the deceased victim who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. On the pretext of marriage, he committed sexual intercourse with her. Later, due to the apprehension that the victim was spreading derogatory statements against him, he intimidated her and committed her murder by stabbing her using a sharp-edged knife.

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the investigation was over, further detention was not needed.

On the other hand, the public prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that the offences alleged were very grave. It was also argued that the appellant had criminal antecedents and that he would threaten the father of the victim and other witnesses.

The Court enumerated the factors to be followed while considering a bail application, such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering evidence and threatening witnesses, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, character, behaviour and previous antecedents of the accused, and larger public interest.

Taking note of the injuries inflicted upon the victim, the Court observed that the allegations against the appellant were grave and serious. It also took note of the concerns cited by the investigating officer that the appellant had previous criminal antecedents, and was threatening the father of the victim and her relatives if released.

The Court thus found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case that the appellant had committed a heinous offence.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal and held that the appellant was not entitled to be released on bail.

Counsel for the appellant: Advocate B A Aloor, Haritha Hariharan, Ailin Elezabath Mathew, K.P.Prasanth, Archana Suresh

Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor G Sudheer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

Case title: Noushid P A v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.A NO. 1939 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment