Dinesh Kumar K. @ Vinesh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.120/2024 OF Alathur Police Station, Palakkad ``` ``` -------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER :-`** ``` DINESH KUMAR.K @ VINESH, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KARUPPAN, KADAMKODE HOUSE, VENGANNUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 541 ``` ## **`BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)`** ## **`RESPONDENT :-`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Smt.Seetha S, Sr.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.120/2024 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 294(b) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.1.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 26.1.2024 at around 21.00 hours, the accused went to the house of the de facto complainant/his mother-in-law and chopped on the rear side of the head and right eye of his father-in-law. When the de facto complainant attempted to intervene, the accused wrongly restrained her and abused her in obscene language. The accused also attempted to chop on the head of the de facto complainant knowing fully well that it would cause her death. It is only because the de facto complainant warded off the attack, she did not ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` lose her life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.A.Johnson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offence under Section 308 will not be attracted. The said offence has been deliberately incorporated by the Investigating Officer to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of the Accident Register-cumWound Certificate would substantiate that the injured had not suffered any grievous injuries as alleged by the prosecution. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.1.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner had inflicted grievous injuries on the injured. She made available the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate issued by the Taluk Head Quarter Hospital, Alathur dated 26.2.2024 to substantiate the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured. She stated that the investigation in the case is complete and the final report was laid on 22.3.2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. She prayed that the application may be dismissed. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he, out of his previous vengeance against his parents-in-law, went to their house and attacked his father-in-law with chopper and also tried to assault his mother-in-law. It is only because his mother-in-law warded off the attack, she did not lose her life. 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.1.2024, more than 60 days, the investigation is practically complete and final report has been laid and, moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his 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 as and when required. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` - (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 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 powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` 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** Jvt/4.4.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.2564 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2564/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.782 OF 2024 OF COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE- I, ALATHUR DATED 01.03.2024 ```