Manu Das v. State of Kerala and Sasthamkottah Police Station

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3278 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.423/2024 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2491 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** ``` MANU DAS AGED 36 YEARS S/O DEVADAS, ADI-ABHIYIL HOUSE ( KRISHNA BHAVAN), KUNNATHUR PADINJATTE MURI, KUNNATHUR P.O., KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540 ``` ## **`BY ADV AJAYA KUMAR. G`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA`** - **`REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SASTHAMKOTTAH POLICE STATION, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.423/2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506(i) & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 12.03.2024 at around 12.30 hours, the accused 1 to 3, out of their previous animosity and in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** defacto complainant and his friend named Rahul, and the 1 st accused stabbed the defacto complainant on his chest with a knife, who suffered a deep injury on the left side of his chest and a fracture on his ribs. Thereafter, when one of the friends of the defacto complainant named Krishnadas attempted to prevent the 1st accused from committing further assault on the defacto complainant, but the 1st accused stabbed him also. The 2nd accused vandalized the autorikshaw of the defacto complainant and caused a loss of Rs.75,000/-. The 3rd accused uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Ajaya Kumar G., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema.T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he has no criminal antecedents. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that the 1st accused had brutally assaulted the defacto complainant and had inflicted a stab injury on him with a knife and he suffered a grievous injury including a fracture of his ribs. The 1st accused also stabbed the friend of the defacto complainant named Krishnadas, who also suffered a ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** grievous injury. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 12.03.2024 of the injured to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the defacto complainant and his friend. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the 1st accused is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Hence, she prayed that the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the materials on record, it can be seen that it was the 1st accused, who inflicted grievous injuries both on the defacto complainant and his friend – the injured. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days. The petitioner’s earlier application for bail was dismissed by this Court by Annexure A3 order, principally on the ground that the investigation was only at its preliminary stage. ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** 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. 9.In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** 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 Constitution of India. After the charge sheet is filed, a **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` 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. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the definite 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.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** 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; (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; ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** (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 ``` 11 ``` ## **B.A. No.3278 of 2024** 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** rmm/23/4/2024