JITHU SHAJI @ KARINJUNNI @ SHATTER; PRAVEEN K.U.; SHARAFUDHEEN V.R.; C. PRAVEEN v. STATE OF KERALA

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 902 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1095/2023 OF Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 61/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA CMP 185/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST ``` ## **`CLASS ,SULTHANBATHERY`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 JITHU SHAJI @ KARINJUNNI @SHATTER, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SHAJI, EALIYATTEL HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, MULANTHURUTHUI, MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314` - `2 PRAVEEN K.U., AGED 27 YEARS S/O. UDAYAN, KADANTHRA HOUSE, PANAGAD, GODESWARAM TEMPLE, KUMBALAM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682506` - `3 SHARAFUDHEEN V.R., AGED 22 YEARS S/O. RIYADH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA THOPPIL, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021` - `4 C. PRAVEEN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN, JARAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033` ``` BY ADVS. K.Y.SAJEEB SHEEJA K.Y. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp smt seetha s ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- B.A.No.902 of 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused 11 to 14 in Crime No.1095 of 2023 of the Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (14 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 342, 307, 395, 397, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 read with Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. The accused 11 to 13 were arrested on 03.12.2023 and the 14[th] accused was arrested on 05.12.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 13.10.2023 at around 02.30 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention entered into a criminal conspiracy and out of their previous animosity with the defacto complainant, they armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of the -3- B.A.No.902 of 2024 defacto complainant (injured) and they wrongfully confined the injured and his father and inflicted cut injuries on the neck and hands of the injured and his father. They also robbed two mobile phones of the injured and his father having a value of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.K.Y.Sajeeb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners are in judicial custody for the last 70 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. So, the petitioners’ continuous detention is unnecessary. Going by the wound certificate of the injured, -4- B.A.No.902 of 2024 there is no likelihood of the offences under sections 326 and 307 being attracted. Hence the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the 1[st] petitioner/11[th] accused has a criminal antecedent. The investigation of the case is not complete. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 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. -5- B.A.No.902 of 2024 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 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, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in -6- B.A.No.902 of 2024 judicial custody since 03.12.2023 and 05.12.2023, that the investigation of the case is practically complete, recoveries have been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on their 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 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; -7- B.A.No.902 of 2024 (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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, 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) 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. -8- B.A.No.902 of 2024 (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, 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** das -9- B.A.No.902 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 902/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure 1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.185/2024 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -1, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYAND DISTRICT Annexure 2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/01/2024 IN CMP NO.450/2024 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -1, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYAND DISTRICT Annexure 3THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/01/2024 IN CRL.M.C.NO.61/2024 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT ```