Jagan Raj.J v. State of Kerala

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2435 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1590/2023 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM POLICE STATION, ``` ## `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JAGAN RAJ.J AGED 25 YEARS S/O JAYARAJ M.A, KARINJA VAYAL PURAYIDAM MENAMKULAM KAZHAKKUATTAM P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695582 ``` ``` BY ADVS.SHYAM KUMAR M.P SREEJA SAJEEV ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV STATE OF KERALA(PARTY-IN-PERSON) ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.1590/2023 of Kazhakkuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (six in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (‘IPC’, for short). The petitioner surrendered on 14.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused in prosecution of their common intention, assaulted the de-facto complainant and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences 3. Heard; Sri. Shyam Kumar M.P, the learned _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:3:-_ counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., 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 accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offence under Section 307 of the IPC will not be attracted to the facts of the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.02.2024, which is 47 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and 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 opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that, it was the petitioner who caused the fracture on the parital bone _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:4:-_ of the de-facto complainant, who was admitted as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, from 03.11.2023 to 05.11.2023. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 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 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 _B.A.No.2435/2024_ ## _-:5:-_ 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. 8. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, that the investigation in _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:6:-_ the case is complete, that the petitioner is a person without criminal antecedents and that the 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 filed and entertained before _B.A.No.2435/2024_ _-:8:-_ 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 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** DST/01.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge