Ali Hassan @ Sulthan Manu v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5312 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.613/2024 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2024 IN CMP NO.3169 OF 2024 OF ``` ## **`JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` ALI HASSAN @ SULTHAN MANU, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED, PALLITHODI HOUSE, CHERUKULAMBU, VATTALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507 BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER , KOLATHUR POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679338 ``` ``` BY SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`ORDER`** ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.613/2024 of the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2024. 2. The concise case of the prosecution is that; on 20.06.2024, at around 17.20 hours, the accused, out of his previous animosity towards the husband of the defacto complainant (injured), attempted to commit his murder by hitting him with a vehicle bearing No.KL 52 J 3286. The injured suffered grievous injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. Heard; Sri.Babu S Nair, 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 accusation levelled against him. The defacto complainant has deliberately got the case registered against the petitioner due to the injured’s previous animosity towards him. In fact, the injured was attempting to commit the murder of the petitioner. The injured had constantly threatened the petitioner, that he would murder the petitioner. The injured is a drug addict and has antecedents. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that the petitioner has committed a very heinous crime by consciously hitting his vehicle against the injured, who has suffered grievous injuries. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he attempted to murder the injured by hitting his vehicle against the injured, who suffered grievous injuries. The said allegation prima facie stands corroborated by the treatment records of the injured. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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. 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 ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of 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 40 days, the investigation in the case is 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: ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Officer on - Investigating every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till 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 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; - (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 ``` B.A.No.5312 of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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 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/- **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** NAB