BAIL APPL. NO.1236 OF 2024

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1236 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.40/2024 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/1ST AND & 2ND ACCUSED:** - **1 AJITH KUMAR @AJI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O MOHANAN NAIR, GEETHA BHAVAN, IRATTAKALUNKU, THACHOTTUKAVU WARD, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571** **2 ANOOP M NAIR @ANU, AGED 34 YEARS S/O MOHANAN NAIR, GEETHA BHAVAN, IRATTAKALUNKU, THACHOTTUKAVU WARD, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571** **BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE MIRAL K.JOY ABHILASH C.V. VARUN JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE** **COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 & 2 in Crime No.40/2024 of the Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (3 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sec.447, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) & 308 r/w.S. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Section 326 was also incorporated. The petitioners were arrested on 26.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 13.01.2024 at around 3.30 p.m, the accused in furtherance of their common intention had trespassed into the house of the defacto-complainant and attacked him and in the process had inflicted grievous injuries on him. The first accused uttered obscene words and second accused using an iron rod beat the defacto-complainant on his back and pushed him down causing fracture to his ribs. The second accused beat the **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **3** defacto-complainant on both his legs and hit him using the iron rod on his forehead near his left eye, causing injuries to his eyes, which has caused a loss of vision. The accused 1 and 2 also beat and slapped the defacto-complainant all over his body. When his wife intervened, the third accused slapped her also. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure-I would substantiate that the offence under Section 326 & 308 will not be attracted. He submitted that actually it was the defacto-complainant who attempted to cause injuries to the mother of the petitioners. She had given a complaint before the police, but the case has not been registered. At any rate, the petitioners **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **4** are in judicial custody since 29.01.2024. Their police custody was obtained for two days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioners' further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation is still in progress. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate and treatment certificate of the injured to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, including the fractures on his ribs, nasal bone and also he suffered loss of vision. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, the investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 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 **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **5** 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, 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, the rival submissions made across the Bar, **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **6** particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 10. 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 of one month or 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 **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **7** him 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 passport, they 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 petitioners even **BAIL APPL.NO.1236 OF 2024** **8** 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]. **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **shg**