null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.129/2024 OF Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S:** **ANOOP AGED 18 YEARS S/O WILSON,MACKAL HOUSE, KANDUKAD DESAM MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651** **BY ADVS. APPU AJITH SHYNI DAS J.S.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP. SMT. SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4[th] accused in Crime No.129/2024 of the Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2024 at around 20.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and they attacked the defacto complainant and his friends. When the defacto complainant attempted to intervene in the matter, the 1[st] accused stabbed the defacto complainant with a sharp object causing grievous injuries to him, including a fracture to his ribs. Two of the friends of the defacto complainant also sustained injuries in the BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 3 incident. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Appu Ajith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the specific overt act is attributed against the 1[st] accused for committing the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was there along with the other accused when the incident occurred. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner is an eighteen year old boy. Hence, the petitioner may be BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 4 released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would hamper with the investigation. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that it was the 1[st] accused who inflicted grievous injuries to the defacto complainant and his friends. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that it was the 1[st] accused who stabbed the defacto complainant and inflicted grievous injuries on him. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted the other accused to commit the offences. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.03.2024. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 5 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 6 784], 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. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and on comprehending the fact that, prima facie there are no material to attribute the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC as against the petitioner, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 7 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; (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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 8 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 necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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/11.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2447 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2447/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 129/2024 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DATED 20/02/2024**