JITHIN JAGANNANTHAN v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1817 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.81/2024 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.227 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/THIRD ACCUSED:`** ``` JITHIN JAGANNANTHAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O JAGANNATHAN, SANTHI BHAVAN HOUSE, KATTOOR.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680702 ``` ``` BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN VYKHARI.K.U SHARAFUDHEEN M.K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 25[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 third accused in Crime No.81/2024 of the Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused(three in number) for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; on 04.02.2024, at about 22.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention and out of their previous animosity towards the defacto complainant's relative named Ashik, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and Ashik, who were travelling on a motorcycle. Then, the second accused pulled them down **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` from the vehicle, the first accused abused them with abusive words, punched Ashik on his chest, and accused 1 and 3 slapped him on the face. Thereafter, the first accused stabbed the defacto complainant on his abdomen. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. A.Rajasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 will not be attracted against the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, which is 50 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in seven other cases of the very same police station. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the above submission, stating that all seven cases allegedly registered against the petitioner are all for minor offences. The petitioner’s application for bail may not be dismissed on the sole ground of antecedents, which is irrelevant. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 Honourable Supreme Court has **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` 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. 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. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the only overt act alleged against the petitioner was that he slapped the defacto complainant, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** 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 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** 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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** (viii) 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/- ``` mtk/25.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.1817 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1817/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DATED 6-2-2024 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-2-2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 1011 OF 2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRSTCLASSMAGISTRATECOURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-2- 2024 IN CRLMC NO. 227 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR ```