ATULKRISHNA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3066 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.464/2024 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERs/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1ATULKRISHNA AGED 23 YEARS ``` ``` S/O RAVI,MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, TALIYAKONAM,SNDP DESAM, MADAYIKKONAM VILLAGE, PIN - 680712 ``` ## **`2 NIDHIN`** ``` AGED 21 YEARS ``` ``` S/O MANIKANDAN,PANIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANDARATHARA DESAM,PADIYUR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDIN A MOORKANAD, ALUMPARAMB, PIN - 680711 ``` ## **`3 VINAY`** ``` AGED 25 YEARS S/O NANDAKUMAR,KOTTUVALA VEEDU, ITHSLKUNNU DESAM,KARALAM VILLAGE, PIN - 680711 ``` ## **`4 SUDEEP`** ``` AGED 38 YEARS ``` ``` SUDEEP,AGED 38 YEAR S/O SURENDRAN, KAITHAKKAPUZHA VEEDU, PANAMKULAM DEAM, KARUVANNUR, URAKAM VILLAGE, PIN - 680711 ``` ## **`5 SREEHARI`** ``` AGED 21 YEARS ``` ``` S/ORAMESHKUMAR, PONTHENKANDATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR PORATHISSERY , PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, PORATHISSERY, PIN - 680711 ``` ## **`BY ADV PADMINIDEVI.C`** ``` 2 ``` ## **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SAJEEVAN`** ``` AGED 44 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. CHANDRAN,KANNAMBULLY HOUSE, PORATHISSERY DESAM& VILLAGETHRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KANNAMBULLYHOUSE,THANISSERY KALLANTHARA DESAM,KARALAM, PIN - 680711 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` ## **Dated this the 12[th] 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 accused 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 in Crime No.464/2024 of the Irinjalakkuda Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (11 in number) for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 29.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; on 28.03.2024, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant, and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` 3. Heard; Smt. Padminidevi. C, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema. T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.03.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioners have settled the dispute with the defacto complainant/ second respondent, who has sworn Annexure A2 affidavit stating that he has no objection to the petitioners being enlarged on bail. Therefore, the application may be allowed. **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused, who inflicted the injuries on the defacto complainant. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant to substantiate the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. She prayed that the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that in Annexure A1 FIR, there is no specific mention of the person who caused the injuries to the defacto complainant. An evaluation of the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant dated 28.03.2024, issued by the Irinjalakuda Co-ooperative Hospital Ltd., would show that the defacto complainant/second respondent has only suffered **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` lacerated wounds on different parts of his body. The fact remains that the accused have been in judicial custody since 29.03.2024. 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 **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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** 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 the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially on considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.03.2024, that the recovery has been effected, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and moreover, that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent has been purportedly settled as per the affidavit sworn by the second respondent, I am of the **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period, till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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. (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].** mtk/12.04.24 **Sd/C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ``` 11 ``` ## **B.A. No.3066 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3066/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 464/2024 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF R2(DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) ```