Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Bombay has granted bail to a 20-year-old college student, accused of murdering his 69-year-old bedridden father. The court, while acknowledging the gravity of the act, highlighted the young offender’s academic background and the necessity of rehabilitation through education.

The court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, emphasising the established principle that younger the age of the offender, the lesser is its culpability, observed: “Applicant is at the threshold of his adult life and halting his education at this stage and subjecting him to further custody would make it highly likely that he would be entangled in the vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality making him a hardened criminal posing a future perpetual threat to the society. If he goes back to his studies and college, it can reform him.”

The incident took place on February 22, 2023, the bedridden victim, a chronic alcoholic with a kidney ailment, urinated in his bed for a second time despite the accused having cleaned up the first instance. Thereafter, he attempted to take non-prescribed medication, leading to a heated altercation with his son (the applicant). The victim, known for frequently abusing his son and wife, continued hurling insults. Unable to tolerate the repeated insults, the applicant retaliated, first by striking his father with a milestone (stone object) and then by slitting his throat with a kitchen knife. He then locked the house, borrowed ₹100 from a neighbour, took an auto-rickshaw, and surrendered at the police station. The victim was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. The applicant’s confession was recorded on February 25, 2023.

The prosecution, represented by APP Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, opposed the bail application contending that this was not a case of grave and sudden provocation but a cold-blooded murder. The prosecution highlighted the severity of injuries, including blows to the temple/head with a milestone and the fatal throat-slashing with a kitchen knife, arguing that it demonstrated cruelty and intent to kill.

On the contrary, Advocate Aruna S. Pai, appearing for the applicant, argued that the applicant, a second-year Bachelor of Management Studies (BMS) student, had no prior criminal record and had been incarcerated for two years. The applicant’s academic record and aspirations were highlighted to argue that he was burdened by family hardships, including his bedridden father and financially struggling mother. It was further asserted that the incident was not premeditated, but rather an unfortunate escalation of events. The counsel for the applicant urged the court to grant him bail, cautioning that prolonged incarceration might turn him into a hardened criminal. It was also pointed out that, rather than fleeing, the accused voluntarily surrendered at the nearest police station immediately after the incident.

The court considered the accused’s age, educational background, and the specific circumstances of the incident, observing that the accused’s continued incarceration could hinder his potential for reformation. Relying on precedents established in Siddharth Jain v. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies and Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, the court noted: “while dealing with a young offender, every attempt should be made to ascertain whether the sentencing disposition could be tailored as long as it is consistent with other sentencing principles so as to promote reformation and lead to rehabilitation of the offender.”

“I am prima facie of the opinion that the situation leading to the ultimate assault was a result of grave provocation because of the precursor incidents with respect to victim hurling repeated barrage of abuses not only on the Applicant but also his mother, which could not be handled by the Applicant’s 20 year old adolescent mind at that stage,” the court further observed.

Emphasising the lack of criminal tendency in the applicant’s conduct, the court stated, “his exclusion from the normal educational stream for a period of time brings about unpleasant consequences and harm which in any case case amongst others is the purpose of any punishment. The Applicant before me has admitted the act by himself walking to the Police Station giving information to the Police. He could have even run away had be been of a different criminal tendency.”

The court expressed hope that the applicant would resume his education and said that “the Applicant should be given a chance to make an attempt to demonstrate that he has reformed his conduct and is leading a law-abiding life with prospects of making a positive impact on society.”

The court concluded by stating that “every attempt should be made by the Court by ensuring that Applicant is accorded an opportunity to continue and go back to his studies.”

Accordingly, the applicant was granted bail to allow him to resume his education.

 

Cause Title: Tejas Shamsunder Shinde v State of Maharashtra [BAIL APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2024]