High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-24Bail application allowed; accused released on b...

Krishna Prasad @ Rajesh and Sreejith @ Kutttu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4053 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-05-24
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on executing bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO as directed; (ii) not to induce or tamper with witnesses; (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender passport, if any; (v) not to leave the territorial jurisdiction without court permission; (vi) provide present and permanent addresses and mobile numbers; (vii) compliance with conditions; (viii) court may modify or delete conditions; (ix) IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries as permitted by law and applicable Supreme Court guidance; the order notes the presumption of innocence and that bail is the rule, with restricted detention only when justified by the facts.
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed; accused released on bail with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishna Prasad @ Rajesh
Sreejith @ Kutttu

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Girish Kumar M S
• Akash S.
• L.R. Dhanuja

Counsels for Respondents

• Gratious Kuriacose
• C.K. Suresh, Special Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by two accused in Crime No.106/2024 of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging a judicial order in CRMC No.578/2024. The petitioners, accused 1 and 2, are charged with offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a killing that occurred on 7 February 2024 following a verbal altercation after consuming alcohol. They were arrested on 9 February 2024. The petitioners contend they are innocent and falsely implicated; they submit that a reading of the FIR and custody applications shows that Section 302 IPC cannot be attributed to them; they have been in judicial custody for about 105 days, the investigation is complete, and the final report has been laid; they have no criminal antecedents, and further detention is unnecessary. The State prosecutors oppose bail, arguing that release would risk intimidation of witnesses and tampering with evidence, though they do not dispute that recovery has been effected and the final report filed. The Kerala High Court relies on Supreme Court principles: presumption of innocence, bail as the default, and that detention must be justified by the facts and progress of the case. After careful consideration, the court allows the bail application subject to stringent conditions, balancing liberty with the ongoing investigation and public interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 (protection against prolonged detention of undertrials)
Detention must be justified by the facts and progress of the case; strong reasons required after charge sheet

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they are entirely innocent and falsely implicated; the FIR and custody records show no basis to attribute Section 302 IPC to them; they have remained in custody since 9 February 2024 (about 105 days) while the investigation is complete and the final report filed; they have no criminal antecedents; continued detention is punitive and unjustified given the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule. They advocate for stringent conditions to ensure non-interference with witnesses and maintenance of safety and cooperation with the investigation, arguing that release on bail with proper safeguards will not prejudice the case. They rely on established jurisprudence emphasizing the primacy of liberty unless compelling reasons exist for detention and that public sentiment cannot override constitutional protections.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that release on bail would risk witness intimidation and tampering with evidence; however, it does not dispute recovery and final report. It stresses the need to safeguard the investigative process and public interest, justifying cautious use of bail. The respondents urge the court to consider the risk of interference with witnesses and the possibility of evading investigation, underscoring the need for conditions to prevent misuse of liberty while not disregarding the presumption of innocence.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 1 SCC 40	Positive	Used to reinforce presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the norm unless there are compelling reasons to detain.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Cites bail as the rule; discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously and with compassion.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Undertrials must not face indefinite detention; detention must be justified against Article 21.
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Long pre-trial detention is inconsistent with Article 21 and due process.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Positive	Cited for the proposition that investigation and recoveries may proceed during bail as per higher court guidance.

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 Krishna Prasad @ Rajesh and Sreejith @ Kutttu 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 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4053 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.106/2024 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, ``` # **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.578 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ``` ``` 1KRISHNA PRASAD @ RAJESH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, HOUSE NO. PRA 45, EDAPAZHANJI, PALOTTUKONAM ROAD, PANGODU WARD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010 2SREEJITH @ KUTTU, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, HOUSE NO. 9/2013(6), PAZHANI NAGAR, PANGODE WARD, SASTHAMANAGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GIRISH KUMAR M S AKASH S. L.R.DHANUJA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, SHO, THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADGP. SRI. GRATIOUS KURIACOSE SRI. C.K. SURESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.106/2024 of the Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 9.2.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that; on 7.2.2024, at around 11.30 hours, the accused 1 and 2 along with Sajumon (deceased) entered into a verbal duel, after consuming alcohol and an altercation occurred. In the altercation, the second accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased and hit him against the **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` wall, causing injuries to his neck as well as his head. When the deceased fell down on the ground, the accused stamped and fisted him, which led to his death. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Girish Kumar M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Suresh the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure I FIR and Annexure II custody application would show that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC cannot be attributed against the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 9.2.2024, which is more than 100 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** has been been laid. Furthermore,the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioners further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. However, he did not dispute to the fact that the recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, they had assaulted the deceased on 7.2.2024, which led to his death. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 105 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has already been ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** laid. 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. **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 9.In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 105 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid, I am of the definite view that the petitioners further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** 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 Investigating Officer as and when directed; (ii) The petitioners 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 them 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 he is on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** 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) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court; (vi) The petitioners shall furnish their present and permanent addresses and mobile phone numbers to the Investigating Officer as well as the court below; (vii) 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. **B.A. No.4053 of 2024** ``` 10 ``` (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (ix) 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].** **Sd/-** rmm/24/5/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**