BAIL APPLICATION NO.3962 OF 2024

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3962 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.404/2024 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2024 IN CRMP NO.1310 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ``` ``` 1JOY, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. JESTIN, R/AT UDUMBICKAL HOUSE, ANAKKULAM, MANKULAM POST & VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561 ``` ``` 2SANEEESH, AGED 23 YEARS S/O SHAJI, MUKALEL HOUSE, ANAKKULAM, MANKULAM POST & VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561 ``` ``` 3DEVASIA, AGED 61 YEARS S/O AVIRAH, NELLIMALAYIL HOUSE, ANAKKULAM, MANKULAM POST & VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561 ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2024 O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.404/2024 of the Munnar Police Station, Idukki, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 29.04.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 28.04.2024, at around 17.00 hours, the accused 1 and 2, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and when the defacto complainant’s son attempted to intervene in the matter, the first accused cut him on his hand and caused him injury on his little finger. The accused 2 and ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** 3 hit the defacto complainant on his head with a stone, causing grievous injuries to him. When, the defacto complainant fell down on the ground, and the accused 1 and 3 kicked him on his body. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. S.Jiji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha.S the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. A reading of the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured would substantiate that the injured had only suffered minor injuries, which will not even attract Section 324 of **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` the IPC. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 37 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents since they are involved in two other crimes. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the defacto complainant and his son. She stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, they would tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** can be gathered that the prosecution allegation against the accused is that they wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his son and inflicted serious injuries on them. On an evaluation of the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured dated 28.04.2024, issued by the Taluk Hospital, Adimali, it can be seen that both injured had suffered only lacerated wounds on their scalps. Nonetheless, that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 37 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 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 **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 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 the 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. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, on considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 37 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the firm 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** 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 till the final report is laid. 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 Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** ``` 9 ``` (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 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. (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.3962 of 2024** 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 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/05.06.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**