Daniel v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1824 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1608/2024 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN BAIL APPL. NO.417 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` DANIEL AGED 24 YEARS KOONAN (H), KONNAKKUZHI DESAM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN – 686021 ``` ``` BY ADV JERRY MATHEW ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:2:-_ Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in Crime No.1608/2023 of Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ('IPC', in short). The Investigating Officer has subsequently incorporated the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The petitioner surrendered on 22.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 12.10 p.m. on 27.10.2023, following a dispute relating to the use of a motor cycle of the de-facto complainant, the accused stopped the de-facto complainant and stabbed him with a knife on the right side of his abdomen. The injured sustained serious injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:3:-_ 3. Heard; Sri.Jerry Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the First Information Report[FIR] and First Information Statement would substantiate that the offence under Section 326 of the IPC will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that the _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:4:-_ petitioner had inflicted a grievous injury on the upper abdomen of the de-facto complainant. The injured had to undergo a surgery and had to be hospitalised from 27.12.2023 to 01.01.2024. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, it is discernible that the petitioner had allegedly inflicted a stab injury on the right side of the abdomen of the de-facto complainant. The accident register-cum-wound certificate as well as the medical records show the serious nature of the injury sustained by the de-facto complainant. It is reported that the investigation in the case is still in progress. 7. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: “9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:5:-_ factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: - (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; - (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation: - (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; - (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; - (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; - (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; - (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” ## 8. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.** **Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another** [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:6:-_ and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the evidence by the accused. ## 9. In **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar** [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:7:-_ the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.” ## 10. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr** [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines: “30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.” ## 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to _B.A.No.1824/2024_ _-:8:-_ the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially after comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, that the investigation in the case is still in progress and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the application. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. ## **Sd/-C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/06.03.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge