Ajas v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4514 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.309/2024 OF Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` AJAS ``` ``` AGED 24 YEARS S/O SHAJI, PATHIYATH HOUSE, PULLU VILLAGE, PULLU DESOM, NEAR KALLATT TEMPLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680013 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN SANJU K. SIVAN ARATHY P. ANJANA S. RAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sr PP Smt Seetha S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.4514 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.4514 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.309/2024 of the Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.3.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 16.3.2024, at around 8.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to cause hurt to the de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained and criminally intimidated him and his friend. Then the first accused with an intention to commit murder of the de facto complainant cut him on his neck with a sword. The accused also 3 BA No.4514 of 2024 assaulted the friend of the de facto complainant with hands. The accused abused them with obscene language. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Smt.Gayathri Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled him. There are no against incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offence under Sec.307 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the said offence to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 78 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in 4 BA No.4514 of 2024 progress. She also stated that the petitioner is an accused in crime No.1378/2020 for allegedly committing an offence under Sec.294(b) and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had caused grievous injuries to the de facto complainant who had to be administered with twelve sutures. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him tampering with evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner and the second accused is that, the accused in furtherance of their common intention had restrained the de facto complainant and his friend and inflicted grievous injuries on them. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 78 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. 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 5 BA No.4514 of 2024 punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in 6 BA No.4514 of 2024 judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 78 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite 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 him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 7 BA No.4514 of 2024 the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 them 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 he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of 8 BA No.4514 of 2024 bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) 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/-** sks/5.6.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**