SREEJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 248 of 2013 of Nooranadu Police Station. The investigation of that crime is now being continued for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused three in number, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy formed by them, committed the murder of one Sasidharan Nair, father of present petitioner, is the gist of accusation. Petitioner is the eldest daughter of the victim. She maintained an illicit relationship with the 1st accused in the crime, who employed in gulf country, used to send her money. The victim, her father, had objected her illicit relationship with A1, and at times, when intoxicated with liquor, he would pick quarrel with her over her affair with A1, is the further allegation. Since the victim was an obstruction to the illicit affair maintained by petitioner with A1, and, also to get hold of her share of property comprising a building in which victim, petitioner and her sister resided, she planned with A1 to murder the victim. A1 later engaged A2, his friend, promising a sum of Rupees One lakh, to finish of the victim. The three accused criminally conspired to accomplish their design and in pursuance thereof, A1, on the evening of 23.2.2013, took the victim in a bike to a desolate place. A2 also reached there. Without the knowledge of the victim, he was administered poison giving him liquor mixed with such poison. A1, thereafter, suffocated the victim, and A2, inflicted a stab injury, with a knife on vital part of the victim, and committed his murder. Both the above accused together, to screen them from the offences committed, immersed the body of victim in a nearby pond. Detection of the dead body in the pond later led to registration of a crime under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation revealing complicity of all the three petitioners, the offences stated earlier were incorporated and they were arrested. Petitioner was arrested on 22.3.2013. Later, on production before the Magistrate, she was remanded to judicial custody. She has filed the above application seeking her enlargement on bail.

(2.) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime registered over the death of the murder of her father solely on the basis of some calls made from a mobile phone belonging to her younger sister to A1, is the submission of her counsel. Her younger sister might have called A1 in her phone, and the imputation made that such phone was used by her and she criminally conspired with A1 and other accused, A2, to commit the murder of her father is baseless, is the further submission. At any rate, continued detention, where all the accused in the crime had been arrested and recoveries effected with investigation practically over, is not required for its completion, is the submission of counsel to urge for her release subject to conditions as deemed fit and proper. Release of petitioner on bail is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Investigation has disclosed complicity of petitioner in the grave offence of committing the murder of her father, and further details are yet to be gathered over the money sent to her by 1st accused from the banks and other financial agencies, and, if released on bail, she is likely to influence the witnesses, most of whom are related to her and also residents in the locality and she may also tamper with the evidence of the crime, is the objections raised. Case Diary has been perused for my perusal. Petitioner has already undergone pre-trial detention of more than two months. No doubt, the offence imputed against her are very grave, and, that materials gathered by investigating agency give room to suspect complicity of petitioner with other accused in the commission of crime. However, whether her continued detention is called for, for the purpose of investigation, or on any other ground raised by Public Prosecutor, has to be examined. To collect the details of money alleged to have been sent to her by A1 from banks and other financial concerns, continued detention of petitioner is not warranted. Material witnesses in the case are either relatives or close by residents of petitioner and she is likely to influence and tamper with the evidence, is another objection raised. The apprehension expressed thereof can be taken care of imposing adequate conditions restraining petitioner from obstructing the course of investigation or tampering with the evidence. Release of petitioner on bail may be essential for her to defend the accusation made against her. Her continued incarceration, where she has already suffered pre-trial detention of two months, in the given facts of the case, is not warranted.