Bail Applications in Crime No. 222/2024 (Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad) – Sajith and Rahuldas v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4640 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.222/2024 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ``` ``` SAJITH AGED 29 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY, KAITHAKULAM, KUNDALASSERI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679532 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.VINOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679513`** ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4229/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4229 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.222/2024 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`PALAKKAD`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.6148 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED: ``` ``` RAHULDAS, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.RAMADAS, MURICHIRA HOUSE, KANJIRAMPARA,SREEKRISHNAPURAM , PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679513 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN P.K.SUBHASH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679513`** ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.4640/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` ## **Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2024** ## **COMMON ORDER** The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 5 and 8 in Crime No.222/2024 of the Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused ( 9 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 364 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 11.5.2024. B.A No.4640/2024 is filed by the 5[th] accused and B.A. No.4229/2024 is filed by the 8[th] accused. As the applications arise out of the same crime, they were consolidated, jointly heard and disposed of by this common order. ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 11.5.2024, at around 13 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of assaulting the de facto complainant, criminally trespassed into the house of one Mubashir, the friend of the de facto complainant and took the de facto complainant in an autorickshaw to a lonely place and then they attacked him with swords and sticks and they also attacked Mubashir and he suffered dislocation of his tooth. The de facto complainant and his friend suffered serious injuries in the incident. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. V.A Vinod and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 364 of the IPC cannot be attributed against the petitioners. The specific overt act is only alleged against the first accused, who abducted the victims and caused injuries to them. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 11.5.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. Hence, the applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, they would tamper with evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the applications ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** may be dismissed. However, he did not dispute the fact that the specific overt act is only alleged against the first accused and further the petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that, the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused, who is principally responsible for abducting the de facto complainant and his friend and then causing serious injuries to them. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and 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 guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** 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 judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month, 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 applications, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the applications are 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** 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 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 he is 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 an ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** ## **`10`** 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 while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble ``` 11 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024** Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of** **Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** **SD/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/7/6/2024