Kerala High Court: P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., dismissed a bail application of a woman who was involved in six murder cases.
Petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 110, 120(B), 201, 302, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 2 read with 6(2) of the Poison Act.
For the above-stated offences, the petitioner has been arrested and is in judicial custody since 2019.
Prosecution Case
Petitioner who is also the 1st accused with an intention to kill the minor daughter of her second husband poisoned the child through food and killed the said child by administering cyanide which was procured with the aid and assistance of the accused 2 and 3.
For the ulterior intention and motive to marry Shaju Sakhariyas, who is a teacher and having a fixed and regular government salary, the 1st accused plotted a plan to do away with the little daughter of Shaju.
The child was calculated as a burden in the future by the petitioner.
After about 1.5 years of the above incident, 1st accused killed the first wife of the said Shaju by administering cyanide and thereafter married Shaju within a short span of time.
Petitioner approached this Court with a bail application.
Petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the petitioner being a woman is entitled the benefit of proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC. The said proviso states that,
‘the Court may direct that a person referred to in Clause(i) or Clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm’.
Court stated that the word ‘may’ used in proviso itself shows that its the discretion of the Court to either grant bail or not.
Hence, simply because the petitioner is a woman, she is not entitled to bail and in the present matter, allegations against the petitioner are very serious.
Court further considered the contention of the Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had attempted to commit suicide inside the jail and releasing the petitioner at this stage would be dangerous.
Bench stated that the petitioner is involved in 6 murder cases and the modus operandi of the petitioner is almost the same in all the cases.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC. [Jollyamma Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 3265, decided on 14-08-2020]
