Kalathiya Akshar Bharathbai v. State of Kerala and Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 936 OF 2024 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.36/2024 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION,`** ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` KALATHIYA AKSHAR BHARATHBAI, AGED 24 YEARS S/O KALATHIYA BHARATHBAI, 74, SHERJI NAGAR SOCIETY 2,VED ROAD, NR.DABHOLI CHARRASTA, , SURAT, GUJARAT, PIN - 395009 ``` ``` BY ADV P.ANTO THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT NEEMA T V ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** **B.A. No.936 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.36/2024 of the Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 465, 468, & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the accused had fabricated the Kerala Higher Secondary Course Certificate and Transfer Certificate and submitted the same as genuine documents before the Norka Roots Authentication Centre for HRD attestation. On a ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** verification of the documents, it was found that the documents were fabricated. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Anto Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024, which is 37 days. The investigation in the case is complete after the petitioner was given in police custody. The recovery has been effected. The petitioner is a young boy aged 24 years. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court, including ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** not to leave the State of Kerala until the investigation is complete and the final report is laid. He is also prepared to furnish sureties who hail from the State of Kerala, since he is a native of Gujarat. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, stating that the petitioner’s antecedents is to be inquired into. There is a likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice. The investigation is only at its preliminary stage. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would send a wrong message to society. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. 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 ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** 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. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and taking into account the law referred to in the aforesaid decisions and further that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024, that the Investigating Officer had obtained the police custody of the petitioner, that the recovery has been effected and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions, especially keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner hails from outside the State of Kerala. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties (preferably one of them from the State of Kerala) 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 Tuesday and 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 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, ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** 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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and his mobile phone number and the place where he proposes to stay till the final report is laid; (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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.936 of 2024** 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/- ``` rmm/19/2/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**