Lefnas v. State of Kerala & Ors.

# **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. 4160 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.128/2024 OF Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S:** **LEFNAS AGED 36 YEARS S/O LATHEEF, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682015** **BY ADVS. VISHNU DAS SRUTHI DAS MARIA NEETHU T.J ANAGHA A.S. GINI GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682020** **SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4[th] accused in Crime No.128/2024 of Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 323, 324, 342, 506(ii), 395, 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 03.04.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 07.02.2024, at around 23.30 hours, the accused 1 to 4, with an intention to commit robbery, abducted the husband of the defacto complainant in the car owned by the 1[st] accused, with the assistance of the 5[th] accused. The accused 1 to 3 assaulted the victim and obtained a sale letter from him. They also demanded and received Rs.80,000/- from him through Google pay and Rs.50,000/through bank transfer as a ransom. They also demanded the defacto complainant to pay further money for his BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 3 release. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Vishnu Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 395 and 364A of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has no criminal antecedents. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.04.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, by Annexure A4 order, the accused 1 and 2 have been enlarged on bail by this Court. The petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of a similar order. Hence, the application may be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also stated that the accusations leveled against the petitioner is serious in nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the prosecution allegation it is seen that the accused 1 to 4 had allegedly abducted the defacto complainant and received money and, thereafter, demanded more money from the defacto complainant as ransom. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.04.2024, which is 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. More over, by Annexure A4 order, the accused 1 and 2 have been enlarged on bail by this Court. BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 5 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. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and especially taking into account the BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 6 fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, that the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and accused 1 and 2 have been enlarged on bail by Annexure A4 order, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 7 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 8 vi. Application 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 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** rkc/24.05.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4160 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4160/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 128/2024 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **Annexure A2** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.1673/2024 OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, ERNAKULAM IN CRIME NO. 128/2024 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION DATED 24.04.2024** ## **Annexure A3** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC NO. 1411/2024 OF HON'BLE COURT OF SESSIONS (VACATION COURT) ERNAKULAM DIVISION DATED 14.05.2024** **Annexure A4** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A NO.2493/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03.04.2024**