High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeApplication allowed; bail granted on terms as s...
Chandrasekhar and Linagaraj v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO.1209 OF 2024
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- The bail application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of equal amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on specified days; (ii) prohibition from inducing or threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports, if any; (v) provision of mobile numbers and current address; (vi) not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without court’s permission; (vii) court may cancel or modify bail for violations; (viii) IO may carry out recoveries and investigations with information provided by petitioners, as sanctioned by Sushila Aggarwal; (ix) other standard legal safeguards. The court directs report-back as necessary and cites Hussainara Khatoon and related jurisprudence to justify the balancing of liberty and public interest.
- Final Disposition
- Application allowed; bail granted on terms as specified with stringent conditions and ongoing IO supervision.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Chandrasekhar
- Linagaraj
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • A. Muhammed Musthafa
- • S. Prakash
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC, heard by Justice C. S. Dias on 28 February 2024. The petitioners, Chandrasekhar and Linagaraj, both accused in Crime No. 72/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, face counts under sections 411, 414 and 380 r/w 34 IPC. They contend innocence and claim they have been falsely implicated; the investigation is almost complete and recovery has been effected, with the first petitioner in judicial custody for 34 days and the second for 48 days. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, concedes that the investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected but argues the second petitioner has prior criminal antecedents and notes that the petitioners have no roots in Kerala, thus a risk of flight if released. The court cites constitutional and jurisprudential principles, including presumption of innocence and bail as a general rule rather than an exception, drawing on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, and emphasizes the right to life under Article 21 when detention is prolonged without due cause (citing Hussainara Khatoon). Ultimately, the court finds no necessity for continued detention and grants bail on stringent conditions (bond, two sureties, reporting to IO, restrictions on tampering with evidence, passport surrender, etc.), while permitting investigation and recoveries as appropriate under Sushila Aggarwal guidance.
Provisions of Law Cited
CrPC Section 439IPC Sections 411, 414, 380 r/w 34
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
- Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception
- Detention without due cause may infringe Article 21 (right to life)
- Powers to investigate and effect recoveries allowed during bail (as per Supreme Court guidance)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend their innocence, lack of involvement, and wrong implication in the alleged offences. They note the investigation is virtually complete, evidence recovered, and urge that continued detention serves no purpose. They stress that prolonged detention would contravene fundamental rights and the presumption of innocence, and request bail with appropriate conditions given no roots in Kerala and potential flight risk.
Contentions of Respondents
The State argues potential flight risk due to lack of Kerala ties and the second petitioner’s past criminal antecedents. It concedes that the investigation is nearly complete and recoveries have been effected, but maintains that bail should not be granted pending trial due to the severity of the offences and the need for ongoing investigation.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanjay Chandra v. CBI | (2012) 1 SCC 40 | Positive | Supports presumption of innocence and cautions against denying bail solely on prior conduct. |
| Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. | (2018) 3 SCC 22 | Positive | Affirms bail as the general rule and emphasizes case-specific evaluation. |
| State of Kerala v. Raneef | (2011) 1 SCC 784 | Positive | Confirms that prolonged detention without due cause infringes Article 21 and justifies bail considerations. |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar | (1980) 1 SCC 81 | Positive | Foundational to speedy access to justice and appropriate bail norms to avoid indefinite detention. |
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Authorizes investigation and recoveries to be conducted even while on bail under Supreme Court guidance. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Chandrasekhar and Linagaraj 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**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 1209 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.72/2024 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 508/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST**
**CLASS ,THIRUVALLA**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:**
**1 CHANDRASEKHAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ALAKUPANDIAN, PILLAYARKOVIL STREET, HOUSE NO. 52, SUBBAYAPUARAM TALUK, THRIUVANALVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 627753**
**2 LINAGARAJ AGED 48 YEARS S/O. MARUTHAYYA THEVAR, SUBBAYA AMAN KOVIL STREET, HOUSE NO.1/56A, DEVARKULAM PO, MANOOR TALUK, TAMINL NADU, NOW RESIDING AT THE RENTED HOUSE OF VT THOMAS, KANDATHIPADI BAGHOM, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE AND MURI, PIN - 627951**
**BY ADVS. A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA S.PRAKASH**
## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE**
**COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 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.72/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against them for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sec. 411 and 414 & 380 r/w.S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2024 and the second petitioner's arrest was recorded on 19.01.2024. In fact, the second petitioner was arrested in crime No.35/2024 of Chengannur Police Station on 09.01.2024.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 22.12.2023 the first accused committed theft of a gold bangle, imitation ornaments and Rs.20,000/- from the brother of the defacto-complainant from the place named Manjadi and, thereafter, sold the same to the second accused, who purchased the articles knowing them to be
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 OF 2024**
**3**
stolen. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.A.Muhammed Musthafa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences alleged against them will not be attracted. At any rate, the first petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 34 days and the second petitioner has been in judicial custody for 48 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the 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. He submitted that the second petitioner is a person having criminal antecedents since he is involved in a
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 OF 2024**
**4**
case of similar nature of the Chengannur Police Station. The petitioners have no roots in Kerala. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them fleeing from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case 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 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
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 OF 2024**
**5**
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 under trial 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, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 34 days and 48 days respectively, 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, but subject to stringent conditions, especially keeping in mind that the petitioners have no roots in the State of Kerala and,
**6**
therefore, following the principles laid down in **Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81]. Therefore, I direct the petitioners to report before the Investigating Officer twice a week till the conclusion of the proceedings.
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 Tuesday and Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the proceedings in the crime. 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
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 OF 2024**
**7**
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) The petitioners shall furnish their mobile number and present address to the Investigating Officer.
- (vi) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta, without the permission of the jurisdictional court.
- (vii) 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.
- (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
- (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the
**BAIL APPL.NO.1209 OF 2024**
**8**
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].
**Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE**
**shg**