Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted; Respondent released on bail with ...

Ajith Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No. 2048 of 2024
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-04-01
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Ajith Kumaran is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement, threat, or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any, or an affidavit if none; (v) court may cancel bail on violation; (vi) applications to modify bail conditions to be entertained; and (vii) investigative actions may continue, including recoveries, even while on bail as per Sushila Aggarwal guidance.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted; Respondent released on bail with specified bond and conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ajith Kumaran

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Bejoy Joseph P.J.
  • • M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.)
  • • Balu Tom
  • • Govind G. Nair
  • • Bonny Benny

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C. S. Hrithwik (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application by Ajith Kumaran, the sole accused in Crime No.120/2024 of Kasaragod Police Station. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC, allegedly committed on 31.1.2024 when the de facto complainant was assaulted with a knife during a quarrel arising from political animosity. The record shows the petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2024 and has remained in judicial custody for 42 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends innocence, false implication, and that investigation is practically complete with recovery effected, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, warranting enlargement on bail. The Public Prosecutor, while opposing, concedes lack of antecedents and recovery, but argues that investigation is still in progress, which could justify caution. The court relies on constitutional and statutory protections, notably the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail before conviction is the exception. It also relies on jurisprudence declaring that prolonged detention without trial can infringe Article 21 rights. After evaluating the facts—detention already 42 days, largely complete investigation, no antecedents, and completed recovery—the court is persuaded that further detention is unnecessary and grants bail subject to conditions, including bond, sureties, periodic appearances, and anti-tampering provisions, while preserving the investigative liberty to continue proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 324 read with 34Constitution of India - Article 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI)
  • Bail is the rule; incarceration before conviction is an exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P)
  • Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes protection against prolonged detention (State of Kerala v. Raneef)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication, with no criminal antecedents and the arrest on 19.02.2024. He emphasizes that the investigation is practically complete, recovery has been effected, and continued detention would violate the presumption of innocence and potentially Article 21. Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P, the applicant argues bail is warranted as a matter of right whenever the case’s facts and circumstances justify it, especially with no ongoing risk of tampering with evidence given the recovery and lack of antecedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the investigation is still in progress. While conceding no antecedents and recovery, the prosecution urges caution due to ongoing inquiry and the need to ensure a fair investigation. No further grounds for opposing bail are explicitly stated beyond the ongoing investigation; the argument rests on the principle that bail decisions must consider the investigation’s status and the likelihood of tampering or interference.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI(2012) 1 SCC 40PositiveCited to support presumption of innocence and bail as a rule, with pre-conviction detention being improper if solely due to former conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P(2018) 3 SCC 22PositiveCited to emphasize that bail is a rule and detention before trial is an exception; discretion must be exercised judiciously.
State of Kerala v. Raneef(2011) 1 SCC 784PositiveCited toHighlight that indefinite detention may infringe Article 21 rights and necessitate timely conclusion of trials.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another(2020) 1 KHC 663PositiveCited to endorse that police may pursue recoveries and continue investigative actions even after bail is granted.

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 Ajith Kumaran 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 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2048 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.120/2024 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` AJITH KUMARAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN,KAKKATHURUTHI HOUSE, ADKATHABAIL BEACH,KASARAGOD VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRCT., PIN – 671221 ``` ``` BY ADVS.BEJOY JOSEPH P.J. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) BALU TOM GOVIND G. NAIR BONNY BENNY ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.120/2024 of the Kasaragod Police Station, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 31.1.2024 at around 23.00 hours, while the de-facto complainant was walking from his wife’s house, there was quarrel between the de-facto complainant and the accused. The accused suddenly caught hold of the collar of the de-facto complainant and stabbed him on the left side of his abdomen with a knife, out of his political animosity. Thus, the accused has committed _B.A.No.2048/2024_ ## _-:3:-_ the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Bejoy Joseph P.J., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.02.2024, which is 42 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:4:-_ the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and recovery has been effected. 6. 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. 7. 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 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. _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:5:-_ 8. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 42 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the petitioner is a person without criminal antecedents and that the 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. In the result, the application is allowed, by _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:6:-_ 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 him 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; ## _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:7:-_ - (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 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 filed and entertained before 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 _B.A.No.2048/2024_ _-:8:-_ Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/01.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge