Mayoornath vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

This application is submitted under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.263 of 2023 of Medical College Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324, 326, 328, 307 and 302 IPC.

The prosecution case is that, on 03.04.2023, due to previous animosity, the petitioner poisoned the chickpeas curry kept for the breakfast of the deceased by using certain chemicals purchased by him through online mode, and thereby committed the murder of the deceased, who is none other than the father of the petitioner and also caused injuries to his grandmother, stepmother and three employees in the house. The petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2023, and since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for bail is submitted in such circumstances.

Heard Sri.John Sebastian Ralph, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seeetha S., learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State.

I have carefully gone through the records, including the Case Diary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has certain mental ailments and is undergoing treatment. He had also undergone treatment for stomach cancer, and the medical certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, the Division of Gastroenterology, Medical College, Thrissur was also produced, which would show that the petitioner had a history of carcinoma stomach, for which he had underwent total Gastrectomy with Esophagojejunostomy. He also underwent Right cervical Schanomma excision. The investigation in this case is now already over, and the final report has been submitted. In such circumstances, the learned counsel contends that there is no purpose in keeping the petitioner under detention any further, particularly since he does not have any criminal antecedents. The release of the petitioner was sought in such circumstances.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that there are materials indicating that the murder was committed pre-planned after obtaining the chemicals online. The petitioner, an Ayurveda doctor, prepared the poison and mixed the same with the chickpeas curry prepared by his stepmother and kept for consumption by the deceased on the dining table when he came to have breakfast. The learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the petitioner also had breakfast with the deceased to ensure that the deceased consumed the same. Since it was committed with a specific design, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the application for bail. However, it is confirmed that the final report is already submitted before the jurisdictional court, and a copy of the said final report was also made available for perusal.

From the examination of the documents produced, it can be seen that the incident occurred in the following manner. The petitioner had some grudge against the deceased Saseendran, who is his father, as, according to the petitioner the deceased was instrumental in compelling his mother to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze when the petitioner was aged just 13 years. He had certain mental ailments following the said incident, and he was subjected to medication for mental depression for several years. During the said period, the grudge of the petitioner against the deceased intensified as the deceased used to scold the petitioner for various reasons touching upon his behaviour. The fact that the petitioner had undergone treatment for Cancer while he was studying for his final year of Ayurveda medicines also escalated his problems, ultimately leading to the commission of the crime.

It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, he mixed the poison, which he prepared by using the chemicals procured online, in the chickpeas curry kept for the breakfast of the deceased. He sat along with the deceased and had breakfast with the food he had prepared for himself. From the statement of CW2, the stepmother of the petitioner, it is evident that after the deceased finished his breakfast, a portion of the chickpeas curry remained on the plate which she had taken and mixed along with the curry kept for others. Thereafter, she, the mother of the deceased and three employees consumed the same along with idly, and all of them sustained injuries consequent to the same.

In the confession statement of the petitioner, it is mentioned that he intended to commit the murder of the deceased alone and thereafter intended to commit suicide. From the statements of CW2, the stepmother, CW23, the uncle of the petitioner and other relatives, it can be seen that the petitioner had earlier undergone treatment for mental depression. It is also discernible that the mother of the petitioner was also having certain mental ailments. Besides the same, some of the family members of the mother of the petitioner also have a history of mental ailments. Therefore, the possibility of his mental illnesses, got intensified by the grudge that stemmed up in his mind consequent to the suicide of his mother, becoming a major contributory factor for the crime, cannot be ruled out. The physical ailments of the petitioner consequent to the treatment for cancer is yet another contributory factor which could have made the matter worse. Therefore, even though the alleged murder appears to have been committed with a pre-plan, whether it was committed due to a disturbed mental status owing to the above factors is an important matter which cannot be ignored while considering this application for bail. From the statements of CW2, CW3 and CW23, there was no history of violent behaviour from the part of the petitioner. It is true that in the incident, five others also sustained injuries. However, on careful scrutiny of the materials, it can be seen that, apparently, the petitioner never intended to cause any harm to them. From the confession statement of the petitioner, it appears that he was under the impression that the deceased consumed the entire portion of the chickpeas curry kept by CW2 for the deceased, and therefore, he was not expecting that any other person would consume the poisoned curry. From the statement of CW2, it is evident that after the deceased finished his breakfast, there was some chickpeas curry left on the plate, which she mixed along with the curry kept for others and washed the plate. The others sustained injury when they consumed the curry, which got mixed with the portion of the curry kept for consumption by the deceased.

Thus, after considering all the relevant materials, even though a prima facie case is made out, I do not find any necessity for further incarceration of the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, and there is not even any history of violent behaviour. The fact that the petitioner had mental and physical ailments is also a crucial factor to be taken into consideration at this point in time. The investigation, in this case, is already over. The chances of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses are also not seen from the facts and circumstances of the case. The unfortunate events, including the mental status of the petitioner, cannot be ignored while deciding the issue involved in this application. Besides the above aspects, when considering the physical and mental condition of the petitioner, the possibility of the condition worsening due to further incarceration also cannot be overruled. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail with stringent conditions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be released subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when required.

(iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to intimidate or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, who shall produce the same before the jurisdictional court, and if the petitioner is not having a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.