Arun E.M. v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5309 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.347/2024 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2024 IN Crl.MC NO.1021 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & ``` ## **`SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` ARUN.E.M, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, IDAKKATTU HOUSE, THALAKKANI, P.O., KOTTIYOOR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN – 670651 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RESHMA E. ATHIRA V.M. ANNA SONIE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031`** ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.347 OF 2024 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION) KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670643 ``` ``` BY ADV, C.S HRITHWIK (SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE ``` ``` COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 23[rd] 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.347/2024 of the Kuthuparamba Police Station, Kannur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.05.2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; on 23.04.2024, at around 20:30 hours, when the defacto complainant (wife of the accused) was standing in front of their apartment, the accused on getting infuriated on her questioning about his mobile chats, with an intention to murder the de facto complainant, hit her with a wheel spanner on head, stomach and ribs and she suffered grievous injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. Heard; Sri.Reshma E, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing 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 Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC to see that the petitioner is incarcerated. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 73 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, the recovery has been effected and final report has been laid on 01.07.2024. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is un-necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating materials to prove that the petitioner has committed ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` the above offences. The petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in nine other crimes of various Police Stations. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him murdering the de facto complainant/his wife. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; on 23.04.2024, the petitioner on getting infuriated on his wife questioning regarding his mobile chats, assaulted her with a wheel spanner and inflicted grievous injuries on her. Prima facie, the allegations stand proved by the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured dated 24.04.2024, issued by the Aster MIMS Hospital, Kannur, which shows that the injured had suffered grievous injuries. However, it is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial. 7. On an evaluation of the alleged antecedents of the petitioner, I find that five cases have been ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` registered against him for allegedly committing the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and two cases are for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act. Likewise, one case has been registered against him under Section 15 of the Kerala Gaming Act. Therefore, there is only one case that is, Crime No.378 of 2023 registered against the petitioner for committing the predicate offence under Section 308 of the IPC. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be branded as a habitual offender. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 73 days, the investigation in the case is complete and final report has been laid on 01.07.2024. 8. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 9. 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. 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 trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment. 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 tried and duly found guilty. 11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 73 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid on 01.07.2024, 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 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; ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024`** - (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 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. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` (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 ``` ``` JJ ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.5309/2024`** ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5309/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO. 347 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, THALASSERY ``` ``` //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ```