Justine Baby v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.765/2024 OF Kattappana Police Station, Idukki ``` ``` -------------- ``` ## **`- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :`** ``` JUSTINE BABY, AGED 31 YEARS S/O SEBASTIAN VARKY, KAROTTUCHIRACKAL HOUSE, KALTHOTTY KARA, KANCHIYAR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685 511 ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN ``` ## **`- RESPONDENT/STATE :`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.765/2024 of the Kattappana Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had surrendered before the Investigating Officer and his arrest was recorded on 28.05.2024. 2. The concise case of the prosecution is that; on 26.05.2024, at around 23:00 hrs., the accused, out of his previous animosity towards the injured named Christo, intentionally hit his car against the motorcycle of the injured and he fell down and suffered grievous injuries. The accused also attempted to run the car over the body of the victim. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` 3. Heard; Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC to see that the petitioner is incarcerated in jail. In fact, the injured had fallen down from the motorcycle in a road accident. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has registered a case alleging that the petitioner hit down the motorcycle of the injured. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` materials to substantiate that the petitioner has deliberately rammed his vehicle against the motorcycle of the injured and attempted to murder him. The injured has suffered grievous injuries, including fractures of the six bones on the left side of his chest and seven bones on the right side of his chest and also his right shoulder blade. He made available the discharge summary of the injured issued by the Rajagiri Hospital, Ernakulam dated 27.06.2024 to substantiate his assertion. He stated that since the petitioner’s wife is employed abroad, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from the country, if he is released on bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that; on 26.05.2024, the petitioner attempted to murder the injured by running his car over the injured. On an evaluation of the materials on record, especially the discharge summary, it is seen that the injured had suffered serious injuries. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is complete and ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` recovery has been effected. Furthermore, I do not find that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. 7. 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. 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. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` 9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the 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 on - Investigating Officer 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; ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` - (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 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 the court below. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` (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** Jvt/23.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5298 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.5298/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure IA COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -I, KATTAPANA IN CMP NO 2539/2024 Annexure IIA COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 765/2024 ```