High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-26Bail application allowed; petitioner released o...

KAJA v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS
Judgment Date: 2024-07-26
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner KAJA is directed to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 AM and 11 AM until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no further offences; (iv) no travel outside Palakkad without court permission; (v) surrender of passport if any; (vi) court may cancel bail on violation of conditions; (vii) power to modify/delete conditions; (viii) IO may continue investigation and effect recoveries on information provided by the petitioner, as per Supreme Court guidance in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KAJA

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Sr. P.P. SMT Neema T.V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.K. Sandeep
• Reshma Viswanathan
• Swetha R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Sr. P.P. Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by KAJA in connection with Crime No.256/2024 registered at Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad, alleging an offence punishable under Section 326A IPC. The applicant, the husband of the 1st informant, was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.05.2024. The prosecution contends that during matrimonial disputes he poured a liquid resembling acid on the informant, causing injuries to her eyes, face and neck. The medical record, specifically an accident/wound certificate, reportedly corroborates injuries, though the extent of burns is disputed—accident records suggest erythema rather than burns. The defence argues that Section 326A IPC does not apply, citing the FIR and the nature of injuries, and highlights that the accused has been in custody for about 80 days with investigation largely complete and no prior criminal antecedents. The court acknowledges that bail is the general rule and imprisonment before conviction is exceptional, citing Sanjay Chandra and Dataram Singh, and emphasizes Article 21 rights and compassionate adjudication. After considering the totality of circumstances, including lack of antecedents, completed investigation, and the period in custody, the court grants bail subject to stringent conditions, balancing the presumption of innocence with public safety and trial integrity.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 326A of the Indian Penal CodeArticle 21 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Right to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he is innocent and that the FIR does not attract Section 326A; investigation is nearly complete, with no criminal antecedents; the wound certificate shows erythema rather than burns; the 80 days of custody already suffered is excessive; bail should be granted with reasonable conditions to ensure appearance and cooperation, while preserving the presumption of innocence as well as Article 21 rights. He argues that denial of bail based on past conduct is inappropriate where investigation is complete and there is no direct evidence of dangerous intent.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counters that the act constitutes a heinous crime resembling an acid attack, with potential to cause permanent disability and harm. It argues that bail should not be granted lightly given the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of tampering with witnesses or evidence, and the possibility of re-offence. It stresses that full investigation and trial are necessary to prevent jeopardizing the informant’s safety and to secure the prosecution’s case.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Addresses presumption of innocence and cautions against bail denial solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Affirms bail as the rule and emphasizes case-specific evaluation within Article 21 framework.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for principles on powers during bail and investigations, consistent with protecting trial integrity.

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 KAJA 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** **FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.256/2024 OF Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.3433 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.3005 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/S:** **KAJA, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, JYOTHI RAMALINGAM STREET, PERAMBOOR P.O GREATER CHENNAI , CHENNAI DISTRICT, PIN - 600011** **BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP RESHMA VISWANATHAN SWETHA R.** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.NEEMA T.V.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **-------------------------------------------Bail Application No.5588 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.256/2024 of the Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.05.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 06.05.2024, at around 7:00 hours, while the 1[st] informant was standing near a shop and selling lottery tickets, the accused, who is her husband, due to the matrimonial disputes between them, poured a liquid on the body of the 1[st] informant which appeared to be acid. The liquid fell on the eyes, neck, face and chest of the 1[st] informant and she BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 3 suffered burn injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.Sri.T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 326 A of the IPC to see that the petitioner is incarcerated. A reading of Annexure-I FIR would establish that the offence under Section 326 A of the IPC cannot be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, as per the accident register cum wound certificate of the 1[st] informant, it is stated that she has not suffered any burn injuries, but only had an erythema over her face and eye lids. The petitioner does BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 4 not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner has committed a very heinous crime by throwing acid on the face of the 1[st] informant and attempted to cause permanent disability to her. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence and doing away with the life of the 1[st] informant. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he threw a liquid like acid over the body of the 1[st] informant and she suffered erythema over her face, eyes and back of her neck. The said fact stands prima facie corroborated by the accident register cum wound certificate issued by the District Hospital, Palakkad dated 06.05.2024. Prima facie, the 1[st] informant has not suffered any burn injuries or loss of her eyes. However, that is a matter to be investigated BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 5 and ultimately decided at the time of trial. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 6 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 overall consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 7 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. The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.256/2024; - 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 8 - iv. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court; - v. 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; - vi. 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. - vii. Application 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/26.07.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 5588 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5588/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** ## **Annexure I** **TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 06.05.2024 IN CRIME NO 256/2024 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **Annexure ii ORDER DATED 04-06-2024 IN CRMC 3005/2024 ON DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD** **Annexure iii ORDER DATED 20-06-2024 IN CRMC 3433/2024 ON DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD**