## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1719 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.174/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2, 4 AND 5:** **1 SANU AGED 24 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN, CHERANGATT HOUSE, NJARAMBANKOLUMBU, KANNAKANTHURUTHY PO, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683 2 ABHIJITH AGED 20 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN,NJARAMBANKOLUMBU, KANNAKANTHURUTHY PO, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683** **3 SREEKANTH AGED 20 YEARS S/O SIVADASAN, KIZHAKKEKULAMBIL HOUSE, POTHAPARA, KANAKKENTHURUTHY PO, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683** **BY ADV M.VIVEK** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PP SMT SHYNIMOLE V O** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE** **COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 2, 4 & 5 in Crime No.174/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (6 in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 22.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 10.02.2024, at around 21.00 hours, while the defactocomplainant was passing through the road, the accused in furtherance of their common intention questioned the defacto-complainant, and the first accused broke a beer bottle and attempted to stab him. Although the defactocomplainant evaded the attack, he got injured on his right thumb. The accused 2 to 6 also attempted to assault the defacto-complainant. Even though the defacto-complainant attempted to flee from the scene of occurrence, the first **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **3** accused hit him with a flower pot. Then the accused 3 to 5 hit him with their hands. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.M.Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shynimole V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the FIR would substantiate that the offences alleged against the petitioners will not be attracted. Section 308 IPC has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioners. The wound certificate would establish that the injured has not suffered any grievous injuries as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 22.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **4** application. She submitted that there are specific overt acts levelled against the petitioners. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them interfering with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured dated 10.02.2024 issued by the Government Medical College, Thrissur. She also conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 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. 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. **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **5** 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. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar and after evaluating the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured, which shows that he only suffered lacerated wounds, I am prima facie satisfied that the accusations levelled against the petitioners with respect to the offence under Section 308 IPC may not be attracted. In addition to the above, as the petitioners have been in judicial custody **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **6** since 22.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 10. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 petitioners shall appear before the Officer on Investigating 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. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **7** 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, 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. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the **BAIL APPL. NO.1719 OF 2024** **8** 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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]. **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** **shg**