Kannur: The Thalassery sessions court, which granted bail to former Kannur district panchayat president P P Divya in the case related to the death of ADM K Naveen Babu, considered the bribe factor 'immaterial' in the bail application. The verdict was based on the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'.
The counsel of P P Divya argued citing call logs, photographs of CCTV footage, Google Maps details and the statement of the Kannur District Collector Arun K Vijayan to state that the ADM had received bribe and to justify the statements made by Divya at the farewell meeting implying that Naveen Babu took bribe to grant NoC to a petrol pump.
The court, however, stuck with the stand it had made clear even in the order of pre-arrest bail. "Whether the deceased had received a bribe or not is immaterial. The question whether the deceased had received bribe or not need not be considered further in this bail application," the court noted.
Judge K T Nisar Ahammed arrived at the verdict on granting bail to Divya based on eight factors. The court concluded that there was a prima facie case against Divya. Secondly, it considered the nature and charge of gravity, and thirdly, the severity of punishment in the event of conviction.
Regarding the aspect of absconding or fleeing if released on bail, the court noted that the accused is a woman who is a member of the District Committee of CPM and a member of the District panchayat. "Neither prosecution nor the wife of the deceased got a case that there was chance of absconding," the court observed.
The fifth aspect was the character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused, and the court noted that there was no allegation of similar antecedents. The likelihood of the offence being repeated was the sixth aspect considered by the court. It noted that neither the prosecution nor the wife of the deceased had a case of a chance of repetition of the crime. When the aspect of tampering the witness or threat to complaint came up, the Public prosecutor argued that Divya had influence and there was every chance of influencing the witness.
The court, however, observed that simply because Divya was a political figure having influence, bail could not be refused, and the court could impose conditions to rule out the possibility of influencing the witnesses. The final aspect was the danger of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail. The court opined that there was no danger and that it could be prevented by imposing strict conditions.
The court was also not inclined to accept the submission of the counsel of Naveen Babu's wife that Divya would definitely influence the witness. This contention was raised with regard to the ruling in the Arvind Kejriwal vs CBI case, which Divya's counsel had raised during the hearing. The counsel recalled the observations of the court in that case which said that it is high time that the trial courts and High courts should recognize the principle that ' bail is rule and jail is exception'.
However, the counsel of Naveen Babu's wife submitted that this rule applied when there was no apprehension of influencing the witnesses. The court, however, noted that there was a case where the Chief Minister of Delhi was the petitioner, and the Supreme Court had considered his influence and political status and then held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court also took into account the treatment records of Divya's father, who suffers from heart disease and tuberculosis.