IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1104 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.53/2010 Dated 01/02/2010 CRIME NO.835/2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHERIN KARANAVAR, W/O.BINU KARANAVAR, KARANAVAR'S VILLA, THURITHIMEL MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.835/2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION). SRI. SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 1104 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The first accused in Crime No.835 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station, namely, Sherin, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She had filed B.A. Nos.7021 of 2009, 7495 of 2009 and B.A. No.53 of 2010 for bail. Those Bail Applications were dismissed as per the orders dated 4th December 2009, 23rd December 2009 and 1st February, 2010 respectively. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 114, 120-B, 394, 449 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Bhaskara Karnavar, Karnavar’s Villa, Cheriyanad village was found dead in his bed room in the morning on 8-11-2009. Nephew of Bhaskara Karnavar reported the matter to the police. Crime was originally registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation revealed that Bhaskara Karnavar was murdered. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is the following. Sherin, the first accused, who is the daughter in law of Bhaskara B.A. No. 1104/2010 2 Karanvar, was not having a good relationship with him, since he had cancelled the will executed in favour of his son, Sherin and their child. She decided to do away with Bhasakara Karanvar. She sought the help of the 2nd accused Basith Ali for that purpose. Basith Ali had business dealings with Sherin. The other accused persons, namely, Nithin alias Unni and Shanu Rasheed were the friends of Basith Ali. The accused persons conspired together to murder Bhaskara Karnavar. During the late night of 7-11-2009, accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to house of Bhaskara Karnavar. Accused No.1 had made all arrangements for their entry into the house. The accused persons committed the murder of Bhaskara Karnavar, while he was sleeping. The valuable articles of Bhaskara Karnavar were also taken away by accused Nos. 2 to 4. 5. On the date of occurrence, Sherin, her husband and the maid servant were in the house. The husband of Sherin is a mentally challenged person. The driver employed by Bhaskara Karnavar was in the outhouse. The investigating officer found that chilly powder was sprinkled in the bed room, body of Bhaskara Karnavar and several other places in the house, in B.A. No. 1104/2010 3 order to destroy evidence. 6. Accused No.1, Sherin, was arrested on 12-11-2009. All the other accused were arrested subsequently. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to the protection under the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that she is entitled to be released on bail. The petitioner is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's parents are residing at Pathanapuram in Kollam District. The petitioner intends to stay with them. Therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that she would intimidate or influence the witnesses residing in and around Cheriyanadu in Alappuzha District. It is also submitted that after completing the investigation, Charge sheet was filed on 8/2/2010 before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur, where it is pending as C.P.No.3 of 2010. 8. Sri. Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. He contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every possibility that she B.A. No. 1104/2010 4 would intimidate or influence the witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there are enough materials to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was the master mind of the murder. There were two dogs in the house of Bhaskara Karnavar. The petitioner procured sleeping pills with the assistance of the driver. The bill for the same was got in the name of Bhaskara Karnavar. Sleeping pills were somehow administered to the dogs and they were thus silenced in order to facilitate easy entry of the other accused persons to the house. The mobile phone calls between the petitioner and Basith Ali on the date on which the offence was committed is quite relevant. On 7th and 8th November 2009, Sherin contacted Basith Ali on 57 occasions. Basith Ali contacted her over mobile phone on five occasions. The other accused were also contacted over mobile phone by Sherin. Sherin had sexual contacts with Basith Ali. She had also such connections with a person in the neighbourhood, who was a frequent visitor in Karnavar’s Villa. It was also submitted that the petitioner deserves no sympathy and the proviso to Section 437 (1) is not liable to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also pointed out that B.A. No. 1104/2010 5 the element of mens rea is very important in the present case. The evidence of the driver and the maid servant are very material. If the petitioner wins over these witnesses, it would seriously affect the trial of the case. People of the locality reacted sharply against the petitioner. If she is released on bail, tension may occur in the locality. The polygraph test conducted on Sherin reveals that she was hiding very many relevant facts. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that this Court dismissed the Bail Applications filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in B.A.Nos.971 & 972 of 2010 by the order dated 1st March, 2010. It is pointed out that before the date of that order, charge sheet was filed. In spite of the filing of the charge sheet, bail was denied to accused Nos.3 and 4. 9. While disposing of B.A. No.53 of 2010, it was held thus: “Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, when the charge sheet is about to be filed within a few days, as submitted by the learned Director General of B.A. No. 1104/2010 6 Prosecution. If the investigating officer does not file the charge sheet within 90 days of the date of arrest of the petitioner, she could claim to be released on default bail under the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I also make it clear that if the charge sheet is so filed within the time prescribed, the petitioner would be free to approach this Court again for bail, in which event the question of releasing her on bail, on such conditions as may be found fit, would be considered.” 10. As stated earlier, the investigation is over and the charge sheet was filed. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a woman who has to maintain her daughter aged 4 years, I am of view that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. 12. The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First B.A. No. 1104/2010 7 Class, Chengannur, subject to the following conditions:- A) The petitioner shall report before the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday and Thursday, until further orders. B) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram districts without giving prior intimation in writing to the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam. It is made clear that this condition does not preclude the petitioner from appearing before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur and also before the Sessions court concerned after the committal of the case, on the dates of posting of the case. C) The petitioner shall surrender her Passport before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur within a period of one week. If the petitioner does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn to by her to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate within one week. D) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. E) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A. No. 1104/2010 8 F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. The registry will forward a copy of this order to the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm