Kunjumon @ Antony and Joel Peter v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.2960 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2960 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.93/2024 OF Kuthiyathode Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1KUNJUMON @ ANTONY AGED 32 YEARS ( A1 ) S/O. PETER, KURISINGAL HOUSE, THURAVOOR, PALLITHOD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688540 ``` ``` 2JOEL PETER AGED 21 YEARS (A2) S/O. PETER, KURISINGAL HOUSE, THURAVOOR, PALLITHOD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688540 ``` ``` BY ADVS. FRANKLIN ARACKAL I.J.AUGUSTINE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sr PP Sri C.S Hrithwik ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.2960 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.2960 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in crime No.93/2024 of the Kuthiyathode Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused ( two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 13.3.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 29.1.2024 at around 16.00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had trespassed into the hatchery of one Bastin, where the de facto complainant was working and the first accused uttered obscene words at him and hacked 3 BA No.2960 of 2024 him on his head twice with a sickle and caused grievous injuries. The second accused also hit on the head of the de facto complainant with an iron rod. It was only because the injured warded off the attack, he did not lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Franklin Arackal.A.R the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The offence under Sec.307 of the IPC has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioners. A reading of the accident register cum wound certificate would show that the injured did not suffer any grievous injuries. The petitioners had surrendered before the jurisdictional Court, pursuant to the orders of this Court, as early as on 13.3.2024. They are 4 BA No.2960 of 2024 since then in judicial custody. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that the injured had suffered a deep lacerated wound on the left side of his scalp measuring 6x4x2 cm and a lacerated wound on the left side of his neck measuring 4x2x1cm. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioners had trespassed into the place of employment of the injured and caused grievous injuries to him. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in 5 BA No.2960 of 2024 judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 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 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. 6 BA No.2960 of 2024 9. 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 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 considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 13.3.2024, that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for 7 BA No.2960 of 2024 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 they are on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If 8 BA No.2960 of 2024 they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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 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/- sks/12.4.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**