K. SREERAJ and K. SREERAG v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2678 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.58/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, Kannur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.453 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.132 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE),KANNUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` K. SREERAJ AGED 25 YEARS ``` ``` K. SREERAG, S/O SREEDHARAM, KANNARATH PUT HIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR, PIN - 670604 ``` ``` BY ADV K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ,SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2636/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2636 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.59/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, Kannur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.474 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.109 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE),KANNUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` K. SREERAG AGED 25 YEARS S/O SREEDHARAM, KANNARATH PUT HIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR, PIN - 670604 ``` ## **`BY ADV K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2678/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` ## **Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2024** ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** These applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the very same person to get himself enlarged on bail. In B.A.No.2678/2024, the petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.58/2024 registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In B.A.No.2636/2024, the petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.59/2024 of the very same Police Station for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In both the crimes, the petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2024. Since the petitioner is the same in both crimes, the applications are consolidated, jointly heard, and being disposed of by this common order. ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** 2. The prosecution case in B.A.No.2678/2028 in Crime No.58/2024 is that: on 16.01.2024, at about 23.15 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, committed rioting, and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant. The accused 1 and 4, hit the defacto complainant on his head with an iron pipe and sharp-edged weapons, and caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. In B.A.No.2636/2024 in Crime 59/2024, the prosecution case is that; on 16.01.2024, at about 23.30 hours, the accused (1 to 4 and 10 other identifiable persons) in prosecution of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and the first accused hit him on his chest with a knife and attempted to commit his murder. The defacto **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` complainant sustained grievous injuries. The other accused assisted the first accused to commit the above offences. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.K.R. Arun Krishnan., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both cases and Smt.Neema T.Vand the Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutors. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him in both crimes. In Crime No.58/2024, it was the accused 1 and 4, who inflicted the grievous injuries on the injured. Similarly, in Crime No.59/2024, it was the first accused who inflicted the grievous injuries on the injured so as to attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner to have committed the non bailable offences under Sections **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 326 and 307 of the IPC. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2024, which is 59 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents other than for these two crimes on hand. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the application. They submitted that the investigation in the cases is in progress. They did not dispute the fact that in Crime No.58/2024, it was the accused 1 and 4 who inflicted grievous injuries on the injured, and in Crime No.58/2024, it was the first accused who inflicted the grievous injuries on the injured. They stated that the petitioner assisted the main assailant in committing the above offences. They did not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 59 days. **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [(2012) 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 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 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 **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` 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. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially on comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2024, the investigation in the cases is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, and further that the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary in both cases. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications. In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail in both the crimes on him executing bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, in each crime to the satisfaction of the courts 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. Taking into account the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was arrested after a lot of effort from Bangalore, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m, till the determination of the two cases; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the cases so as to dissuade ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** 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 bonds, in Crime No.58/2024. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bonds; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Session, Thalassery, without previous permission of the Jurisdictional Court. (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be ``` 11 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** 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. (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/08.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ``` 12 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2636/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 59/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure II. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2024 PASSED IN CMP 109 OF 2024 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, KANNUR ``` ``` Annexure IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 PASSED IN CRL M.C 474 OF 2024 BY THE SESSIONS COURT THALLASSERY ``` ``` Annexure IVTRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 60/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **B.A. Nos.2636 & 2678 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2678/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 58/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure IITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 PASSED IN CMP 132 OF 2024 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III ``` ``` Annexure IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 PASSED IN CRL M.C 453 OF 2024 BY THE SESSIONS COURT THALLASSERY ``` ``` Annexure IVTRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 60/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ```