Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.172/2024 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** **KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O KRISHNAKUTTY, VARYAVETTIL, KEEZHAKATHIL, KADAVOOR, KARIPUZHA.P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690103** **BY ADVS. M.R.SARIN M.R.SASITH P.SANTHOSHKUMAR (KARUMKULAM) PARVATHI KRISHNA SNEHA JOY MAHALEKSHMY P.S SAUMYA.P.S ASHA MARY KURIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.PP - SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.172 of 2024 of the Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (3 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 506, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on: 21.03.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 16.02.2024 at around 2.00 hours, the first accused ran behind the defactocomplainant and hit him with a steel pipe and the second accused hit him with a brick. Subsequently, the accused 2 & 3 caught hold of the defacto-complainant and facilitated the first accused to assault the defacto-complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3 . Heard; Sri.M.R.Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **3** against him. The overt act alleged in the crime is against accused 1 and 2, who caused the grievous injuries to the victim. In fact, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he facilitated the 1[st] accused to hit on the head of the defactocomplainant. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2024, the investigation in this case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner aided and assisted the accused 1 and 2 to commit the above offences. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. He may also tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation as against the petitioner is that, he, in prosecution of his common intention with the accused 1 and 2, had caught hold of the defacto-complainant and facilitated the first accused to hit the defactocomplainant with a steel pipe and the second accused to hit with a brick. The **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **4** accident cum wound certificate prima facie corroborates with the injuries suffered by the defactocomplainant (injured). **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 circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **5** tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the specific overt act in the crimes is against the accused 1 and 2, but the petitioner has only allegedly assisted the accused 1 and 2 to commit the above offences, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner's 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 petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **6** 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, 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 moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **7** 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** rp **BAIL APPL. NO. 2544 OF 2024** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2544/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXUREA 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.172/2024 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **ANNEXUREA 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO 1532/2024 DATED 18.03.2024 I** **ANNEXURE A 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, MAVELIKARA IN CMP NO 1079/2024 IN CRIME NO 172/2024 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DATED 21.03.2024** **ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMPNO 1079/2024 OF JFCM COURT -1MAVELIKARA ON 21.3.2024**