Anu Micheal v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.1541 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1541 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1413/2023 OF Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANU MICHEAL, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. MICHEAL THOMAS, ATTUKAL HOUSE, T.C.99/482, VALIYAVELI, POUNDUKADAVU WARD, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695583 ``` ``` BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` PP Smt Shynimol V.O ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.1541 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1541 of 2024** ## **----------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 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.1413/2023 of the Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.1.2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: On 4.12.2023 at 00.45 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention of assaulting the informant, uttered obscene words and the first accused hit the informant with a ring box and the 3 BA No.1541 of 2024 second accused hit him with an iron bangle and the first accused attempted to inflict a cut injury on the informant, which he warded. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shynimole.V.O, the learned 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. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Secs.308 and 326 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.1.2024, which is 45 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, by Annexure-D order, this Court has already 4 BA No.1541 of 2024 enlarged the second accused on bail. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is still in progress. She also submitted that the petitioner was the one who caused injuries to the injured and he is a person with criminal antecedents. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the above submissions and stated that three cases alleged against the petitioner have already been quashed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as on date. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the 5 BA No.1541 of 2024 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 **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. 9. 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 6 BA No.1541 of 2024 the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. 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 45 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, and further that this Court has enlarged the second accused on bail as per Annexure-D order, 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 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 7 BA No.1541 of 2024 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; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If 8 BA No.1541 of 2024 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 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/14.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**