High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-11Bail allowed; petitioner released on bail with ...

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the petitioner Chandran is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. until final report; (ii) non-inducement/threat to witnesses or attempt to influence evidence; (iii) no commission of offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if any; (v) court empowered to cancel bail if conditions are violated; (vi) liberty to seek modification of bail conditions; and (vii) reliance on Sushila Aggarwal’s guidance on necessary police recoveries even during the bail period. The order closes with the judge’s signature, and the effect is that the bail application is allowed.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandran, aged 48 years, son of Ramakrishnan, KizhaKkoott House, Amballur Village, Thrissur, PIN - 680301

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Smt. Seetha S., Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jithin Babu A
• Arun Samuel

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chandran, the third accused in Crime No. 33/2024 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The offences alleged against him include sections 308, 506(ii) and 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 7 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was arrested on 13.03.2024. The prosecution’s case states that on 11.01.2024 at around 22:00, accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the defacto complainant’s courtyard, with the 1st accused brandishing a sword against the husband and attempting to threaten the family; the defacto complainant intervened and was threatened with the weapon as well. The petitioner contends innocence and that specific overt acts are attributable mainly to accused 1 and 2; he argues there is no established overt act by him. The court notes that the investigation is substantially complete and recovery has been effected, and that the accused 1 and 2 have already been granted bail. Relying on Supreme Court principles in Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court finds that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. It grants bail to the petitioner with conditions, including bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, weekly appearances before the IO, no inducement or tampering with evidence, surrender of passport, and power for modification/cancellation of bail as allowed by law, citing Sushila Aggarwal for bail conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 308 IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 452 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 7 r/w 27 Arms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until guilt is established
Bail is the rule and imprisonment prior to conviction is the exception
Undertrial detention for indefinite periods may infringe Article 21 of the Constitution
Judicious and compassionate exercise of bail discretion; power to modify conditions under ongoing investigation (as per Sushila Aggarwal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends complete innocence and argues that the FIR (Annexure A1) discloses no specific overt act attributable to him; the accused 1 and 2 are primarily responsible for the alleged non-bailable offences under Section 308 IPC. He has been in custody since 13.03.2024, and the investigation is nearly complete with recoveries effected. Relying on the presumption of innocence (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI), the rule that bail is the general rule (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.), and the right to freedom under Article 21, the court is urged to grant bail as a matter of right barring exceptional circumstances. The court is also asked to consider Sushila Aggarwal’s guidance on bail conditions to balance law and rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the investigation is ongoing and the petitioner has a criminal background (eight prior similar offences). It is alleged that the petitioner aided accused 1 and 2, though the overt act primarily concerned those two. The State emphasizes the seriousness of the offences and the necessity to maintain the investigation integrity. While conceding the presence of strong evidence against those two, the State maintains that the petitioner’s detention is not unjustified given the ongoing inquiry and potential risk of tampering with witnesses or evidence.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Cited to uphold presumption of innocence and caution against denying bail solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and detention is an exception; discretion must be case-specific.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Cited to reflect that indefinite pre-trial detention without due cause infringes Article 21.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for guidance on modifiers to bail conditions and the scope of police recovery actions while on bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Chandran v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.33/2024 OF Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2024 IN CRMP NO.2241 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/S:** **CHANDRAN AGED 48 YEARS SON OF RAMAKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKOOTT HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680301** **BY ADVS. JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.33/2024 of the Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 308, 506(ii) and 452 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 7 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 11.01.2024 at around 22 hours, the accused 1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the defacto complainant's house, where she resides with her family and the 1[st] accused held a sword against the neck of the husband of the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him. When the defacto complainant attempted to intervene, the 1[st] accused brandished the sword against the defacto complainant also. It is only because the BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 3 defacto complainant evaded the attack, she did not lose her life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Jithin Babu A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of AnnexureA1 FIR would substantiate that specific overt act is alleged against the accused 1 and 2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he assisted the accused 1 and 2 in committing the non-bailable offences. The accused 1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 4 further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in eight other crimes of similar nature. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the specific overt act alleged against the petitioner in the present crime is that he assisted the accused 1 and 2 in committing the nonbailable offence under Section 308 of the IPC. 6. On an evaluation of Annexure-A1 FIR and the materials placed on record, it can be seen that it was the accused 1 and 2, who brandished the sword against the defacto complainant and her husband, so as to attract the offence under Section 308 of the IPC. On a prima BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 5 facie appreciation of the materials, it can be seen that the said non-bailable offence cannot be attributed against the petitioner. 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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. 10. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and on prima facie being satisfied that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC may not be attracted against the petitioner, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.03.2024, that the BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 7 investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 8 Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 9 powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is 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** rkc/11.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2893 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2893/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 33/2024 OF PUDUKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 2241/2024 BY JFCM, IRINJALAKUDA.**