Muhammed Hussain H. v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3548 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.291/2024 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` MUHAMMED HUSSAIN H., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. HASSANKUTTY A, PEEDIYAKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL PARUMALA, KADAPRA, PARUMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689626 ``` ``` BY ADVS.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` 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 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.291/2024 of the Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 324 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 12.04.2024, at around 22.30 hours, the accused attacked the de-facto complainant, his brother, and his friend near the Parumala Devaswom Board School. The accused inflicted grievous injuries on the de-facto complainant’s brother’s head, face, and shoulder, as well as on his friend’s forehead, neck, and left underarm with a knife. Thus, the accused has _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:3:-_ committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled 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 suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder and requires constant treatment. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:4:-_ 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him tampering with evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, he had inflicted grievous injuries on the de-facto complainant’s brother and his friend with a knife. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is 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 _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:5:-_ 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. 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. 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. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the ## _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:6:-_ rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, 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 Officer on - Investigating 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 _B.A.No.3548/2024_ ## _-:7:-_ 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 _B.A.No.3548/2024_ _-:8:-_ 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** DST/04.06.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge