Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail application allowed; petitioner released o...

Joby Issac v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 5728 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-07-22
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioner Joby Issac is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the same amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday and as required; (ii) no direct or indirect inducement, threat, or interference; (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any (or an affidavit if none); (v) court may cancel bail on breach; (vi) petitions for modification of bail conditions may be entertained by the court below; (vii) IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries as necessary in light of Sushila Aggarwal; the decision emphasizes that bail is the norm and detention only an exception, balancing liberty with public interest.
Final Disposition
Bail application allowed; petitioner released on bail with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joby Issac

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer Karukachal Police Station, Karukachal, Kottayam District
  • The Station House Officer Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Susanth Shaji
  • • Sidharth O.
  • • Albin A. Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C S Hrithwik, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joby Issac, the second accused in Crime No.930/2024 of the Karukachal Police Station, moves the Kerala High Court for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The petitionar alleges innocence, claiming false implication, and asserts that there is no material linking him to the alleged theft of rotary wheels from a Rubber Sheet Rolling Machine; the first accused has already been granted bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The prosecution contends that incriminating materials exist against him and notes the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents, with involvement in two other cases (Crimes 310/2023 and 542/2024), raising concerns about witness intimidation and tampering if released. The allegations arise from a common-intent theft of rotational components from the petitioner’s and co-accused’s premises, after a prior FIR was transferred from Thiruvalla to Karukachal. The court, while acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns, emphasizes the presumption of bail in a proper case and the principle that detention should not be unduly prolonged, citing established jurisprudence. The court relies on Hussainara Khatoon (I) and Dataram Singh to emphasize that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and cites Sushila Aggarwal to justify the scope of bail conditions, including continued investigation when necessary. On balancing the facts and public interest with liberty, the court grants bail with stringent conditions, directing submission of bonds and imposing conditions to ensure appearance, non-tampering, and passport surrender, while permitting police to pursue ongoing investigations and recoveries.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPCArticle 21 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
  • Right to bail cannot be denied merely due to sentiments of society

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication. He argues there is no material linking him to the alleged theft. He has been in custody for about 40 days, investigation is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. He points to the first accused having been granted bail and emphasizes the presumption of innocence and need for compassionate, judicious exercise of discretion in favor of bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution argues there are incriminating materials against the petitioner and highlights his criminal antecedents, including involvement in two other cases (Crimes 310/2023 and 542/2024). It contends that bail would risk witness tampering and tampering with evidence, and thus the application should be dismissed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar[(1980) 1 SCC 81]PositiveCited to support the principle that antecedents cannot automatically deny bail; bail is a presumptive right in proper cases.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.[(2018) 3 SCC 22]PositiveCited for the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; discretion must be exercised judiciously.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another[2020 (1) KHC 663]PositiveCited to justify that investigations can continue and that bail conditions may be imposed to safeguard the process, reflecting Supreme Court guidance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joby Issac v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5728 OF 2024 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.622/2024 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` JOBY ISSAC AGED 20 YEARS S/O ISSAC YOHANNAN, VADAKKENDEDIYORATHIL, KADAPPOOR, VATTUKKULAM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686587 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUSANTH SHAJI SIDHARTH O. ALBIN A. JOSEPH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686540`** - **`3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689101`** ``` BY SRI C S HRITHWIK SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ## **`22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:`** **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`2`** ## **Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.930/2024 of the Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was originally registered as Crime No. 930/2024 by the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, but was subsequently transferred to the present Police Station. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.06.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 15.06.2024, at around 14.45 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had committed **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`3`** theft of the rotary wheels of the Rubber Sheet Rolling Machine from the processing units of the defacto complainant and one Shaji. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Susanth Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 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. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The first accused has been enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`4`** materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the case. He also submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in two other crimes of the Karukachal Police Station, i.e; Crime Nos.310/2023 and 542/2024. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he, along with the first accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and Shaji, and committed the theft of the rotary wheels of the Rubber Sheet Rolling Machine installed in the said premises. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the first accused has been enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`5`** 7. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the 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. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10.On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`6`** placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and 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, but subject to stringent conditions. 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 till the final report is laid. 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 **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`7`** 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 **B.A. No.5728 of 2024** **`8`** 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** mtk/22.07.2024