BA Nos. 732 and 775 of 2024 (Sunil R v. State of Kerala; Linu v. State of Kerala)

1 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 732 OF 2024 CRIME NO.75/2023 OF Neyyardam Police Station, ``` ``` Thiruvananthapuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SUNIL R, AGED 35 YEARS S/O M RASHEED, PARATHI, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN HOUSE, KARIKKUZHY POST,AMBOORI, PIN - 695505 BY ADVS. R.N.SANDEEP B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL KEERTHI VIJAYAN ATHIRA UTHAMAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2CIRCLE INSPECTOR POLICE, NEYYARDAM POLICE STATION, G4MV+4J2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695572 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.SEETHA.S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024 ALONG WITH BA 775/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 775 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.75/2023 OF Neyyardam Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` LINU, AGED 33 YEARS S/O M RASHEED, PARATHI, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN HOUSE, KARIKKUZHY POST, AMBOORI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505 BY ADVS. R.N.SANDEEP B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL KEERTHI VIJAYAN ATHIRA UTHAMAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.NEEMA.T.V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024 ALONG WITH BA 732/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** **======================** **BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 -----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2024** ## **COMMON ORDER** The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 4 in Crime No.75/2023 of the Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 326, 506 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 20.11.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 31.1.2023 at around 9.00 p.m, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and his friend one Sangeeth with iron rods and 4 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 other weapons and the defacto complainant and his friend sustained grievous injuries including fractures. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Sandeep.R.N, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutors. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been in judicial custody since 20.11.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. The accused 2, 3 and 5 have been enlarged on bail by this Court as per the orders dated 5.5.2023 in BA Nos 3230 and 3228 of 2023. The petitioners are at par with the other accused. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutors seriously opposed the application. They made available the wound certificate of the injured to substantiate the fact that the injured had suffered three fractures and was hospitalized for a considerable period of time. They contended that the investigation in the case is not complete. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the facts, materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, the undisputed fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 20.11.2023, which is nearly 90 days that by orders dated 5.5.2023 in BA Nos.3228 and 3230 of 2023, this Court has enlarged the accused 2, 3 and 5 on bail. 6 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 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 a 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 7 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 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. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 20.11.2023 and the accused 2,3 and 5 have already been enlarged on bail, I am of the view that the petitioners’ continued detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, 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 each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court 8 BA Nos.732 and 775 of 2024 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 passport, 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; 9 BA Nos.732 and 775 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. SD/- sks/14.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**