High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-22Bail granted

Aditi Abhay v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Application No. 5462 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions (i) to (viii) listed in the order, including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer, non-inducement or tampering with witnesses, no leaving the court’s jurisdiction without permission, surrender of passport, and potential cancellation or modification of bail if violated; police may investigate and recover information even while on bail as per the cited precedent.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aditi Abhay

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Geo Paul
• C.R. Pramod Jacob
• George Pallath
• Naveen T.U.
• S. Ashok Kumar
• Harikrishnan A.S.
• Akhai.K.R.
• Mariam Mathews
• C.B. Gautham

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Addl. Director General of Prosecution

Case Synopsis & Summary

An under-section 439 CrPC bail application was filed by the sole accused, Aditi Abhay, in Crime No. 520/2024 of Ernakulam South Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The applicant, a 23-year-old unmarried woman, is alleged to have given birth to a male child in the early hours of 3 May 2024, concealed the birth by covering the infant's face, placed the infant in a bag, and threw the bag onto the road, leading to the infant’s death from a fall and related injuries. She has been in judicial custody for about 80 days; the investigation is said to be complete with recovery effected; the prosecution contends the charge is grave and demands strict scrutiny, while the defense emphasizes that there is no material directly implicating her and that she is a rape victim with mental distress. The petitioner asserts innocence, requests leniency, and highlights absence of antecedents. The court cites Sanjay Chandra v. CBI for presumption of innocence and Dataram Singh v. UP for bail as a rule, and notes that detention would be punitive absent a justified reason. Evaluating the facts—young age, alleged rape victim, completed investigation, no antecedents—the court finds continued detention unnecessary and grants bail on stringent terms. Bond Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; conditions include regular appearances, non-inducement, no new offences, jurisdictional restrictions, passport surrender, and potential cancellation or modification of bail if violated; police may recover information even on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is a rule and imprisonment prior to conviction is an exception
Punishment begins after conviction; every person is innocent until tried and found guilty
The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial; bail is not punitive or preventive

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends she is innocent, a rape victim, and suffers from mental distress. She has been in custody for about 80 days; investigation is complete; there is no evidence of her guilt or antecedents. Counsel urges that restraining conditions be imposed with strict supervision and that detention is unnecessary given the circumstances, including the absence of any direct incriminating material and the petitioner’s need for medical support; the aim is to secure appearance at trial rather than to punish, and thus bail should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the investigation is substantially complete, the recovery has been effected, and though the accused has no prior antecedents, the offense is grave in nature; in such situations, bail should be granted keeping in mind public interest and the possibility of tampering with evidence unless proper conditions are imposed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Cited to reinforce presumption of innocence and that pre-trial detention should not be based on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Cited to support the view that bail is the rule and imprisonment before conviction is an exception; discretion must be exercised judiciously.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for the principle that recoveries or information can be pursued even while on bail, as recognized in the Supreme Court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aditi Abhay v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.520/2024 OF Ernakulam South Police Station,** **Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ADITI ABHAY, AGED 23 YEARS 5C 1, VANSHIKA APARTMENT, VIDYA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI, PIN - 682020** **BY ADVS. GEO PAUL C.R.PRAMOD JACOB GEORGE PALLATH NAVEEN T.U. S.ASHOK KUMAR. HARIKRISHNAN A.S. AKSHAI.K.R. MARIYAM MATHEWS C.B.GAUTHAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR ADV SRI VIJAYABHANU** ## **ADGP SRI GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE** ## **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.S.DIAS,J -------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5462 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, presently by the sole accused in Crime No.520/2024 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against her for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.05.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: on 03.05.2024, in the early morning hours, the accused, who is unmarried, gave birth to a male child. Subsequently, with the intention to conceal the birth and to do away with the infant, the accused covered the face and nose of the infant with a cloth, and placed the infant in a bag, secured the bag with a rubber band, and at around 08.14 hours, threw the bag to the road. The infant lost his life BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 3 due to the fall from the building and the acts of the accused. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against her. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the petitioner in the crime and attributed the murder of her own child. The petitioner is a victim of rape and is a young unmarried lady, who is totally devastated and crestfallen, and is under mental depression. She has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is complete and BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 4 recovery has been completed. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially that the petitioner needs medical assistance, this Court may take a lenient view and enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution formally opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, the recovery has been effected, and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, she for the purpose of concealing the birth of her child, murdered and threw the infant on the road. 7. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner is a 23 year old girl, who is unmarried. It is alleged that the petitioner conceived the child in a rape that was BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 5 committed on her. It is without knowing the consequences, that the petitioner delivered a stillborn infant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 8. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 6 exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 10. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that, the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 11. On an overall consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 7 placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is a young lady aged 23 years, she is an alleged victim of a rape, she has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and further the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. She shall also appear before the Investigating Officer BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 8 on every third Saturday till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.520/2024 and also as and when directed by the Investigating Officer; - ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while she is on bail; - iv. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Ernakulam without previous permission of the jurisdictional court; - v. The petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If she has no passport, she shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - vi. In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 9 empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - vii. Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - viii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/22.07.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 5462 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5462/2024** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure 1**|**ORDER IN CRL. MP.NO,2364/2024 DATED 10-**| ||**05-2024**| |**Annexure 2**|**ORDER IN CRL .M.C.NO.1573 OF 2024 DATED**| ||**28-05-2024**| |**Annexure 3**|**ORDER IN CRL .M.C.NO.1826 OF 2024 DATED**| ||**24-06-2024**|