BA No.945 of 2024

1 BA No.945 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 945 OF 2024 CRIME NO.91/2024 OF Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1SREEJITH, AGED 36 YEARS ELAMTHURUTHY HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680751 2SUMESH, AGED 40 YEARS EDATHARA HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680751 3ARUN, AGED 35 YEARS KELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680751 BY ADVS. SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL ARCHANA VIJAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.NIMA JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.945 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.945 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.91/2024 of the Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 332, 394 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 27.1.2024 at 23.05 hours, the accused 1 to 5, in furtherance of their common intention and out of their previous animosity towards the defacto complainant (injured), who is a public servant, while the injured was discharging his duties in connection with 3 BA No.945 of 2024 celebration of the Church at Kozhukkully, the accused caused problems in the church. The second accused with an intention to obstruct the injured from carrying out his duty, caught hold of his uniform and hit him on his right eyebrow with a granite stone. The injured fell down and then the first accused snatched and took away his gold chain of four sovereigns, and, thereafter, all the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the injured by kicking and stamping him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Sarath Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Nima Jacob, the learned 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 due to the influence of the injured, who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioners have not caused any 4 BA No.945 of 2024 injuries to the injured. The petitioners 1 and 4 have been in judicial custody since 29.1.2024 and the second petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.1.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. They are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that the petitioners had obstructed the public servant from discharging his duties and, thereafter, assaulted him and robbed his gold chain. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioners are let off on bail, they would tamper with the evidence. She also handed over the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured dated 28.1.2024 issued by the General Hospital, Thrissur to substantiate the injuries sustained by him. 5 BA No.945 of 2024 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 a 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. 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, 6 BA No.945 of 2024 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. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, especially after going through the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured, which shows that he has suffered a lacerated wound on his eyebrow, abrasion on his elbow, and multiple abrasion of his knee, that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last more than 17 days, that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioners’ continued detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions: In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties 7 BA No.945 of 2024 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 Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of trial and as ordered by the trial court. (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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any 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; 8 BA No.945 of 2024 (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. sks/15.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**