/null

BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.172/2024 OF Vilappilssala Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SAMBHUSEKHAR, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAJASEKHARAN, THARAVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAM, ARAMADA, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** - **2 KIRAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SREEKANDAN, KRISHALAYAM, KONGALAM, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** - **3 PRASANTH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SHARAL, KONGALAM,ARAMADA THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** - **4 VINOD, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. BABU, MELEPUTHEN VEEDU NEDUMBARATH, ARAMADA THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** - **5 SHYAMSEKHAR, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. RAJASEKHARAN, THARAVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAM, ARAMADA,THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** - **6 SANILKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPAN NAIR SHYAMALANILAYAM, VALIYAVILA, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006** **BY ADVS. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.) V.S.THOSHIN SATHEESH MOHANAN SREEJITH S. NAIR** BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 2 ## **AKHIL SUSEENDRAN** **SEKHAR G. THAMPI COLIN ANTONY DCRUZ MAHIMA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 REJI, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN RESIDING AT SAJI BHAVAN, SASTHAMKOVIL ROAD, MANKATTUKADAVU, THORAVUR, VILAVOORKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571** ## **BY ADV VIMAL VIJAY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **sr pp smt seetha s** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 3 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **====================== BA No.1893 of 2024** **----------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 6 in Crime No. 172/2024 of Vilappisala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against them (6 in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148, 341, 294(b) 323, 324, 326,367 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioners were arrested on 21.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 20/02/2024 at around 12.45 hours, the accused, in prosecution of common intention formed, into an unlawful assembly, armed with 4 BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 dangerous weapons, and abducted the defacto complainant, attacked and caused grievous injuries to him. The 2[nd] accused uttered obscene words, slapped the defacto complainant on his cheek and the accused No.3 and 4 fisted him on his chest. Thereafter, all the accused forcefully took the defacto complainant in a car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The offences under Sections 326 and 367 have been deliberately incorporated for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioners. A plain reading of Annexure A3, First Information Report would show that the above offences will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner have been in judicial custody BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 5 since 21.02.2024, which is 35 days, the the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners further detention is unnecessary. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she stated that the Investigating Officer has orally reported that the offence under Section 326 may be deleted. The accident register cum wound certificate of the petitioners has not been produced before this Court. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, in prosecution of common intention, had abducted the defacto complainant, the 1[st] accused physically assaulted him, and the 2[nd] accused uttered ugly words and accused 3 & 4 fisted him on his chest. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 21.02.2024. BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 9. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 7 under trial 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 facts that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.2.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, and further that the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured has not been produced before this Court, and 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 petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties 8 BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 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. He 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 9 (iv) The petitioners shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 **==> picture [13 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 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/- ## **C.S. DIAS, JUDGE** S.M.K. BAIL APPL. NO. 1893 OF 2024 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** |**Annexure**|**1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE**|**ORDER IN CRL.M.C.**|**ORDER IN CRL.M.C.**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||**NO.536/2024**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**|**SESSIONS**|**JUDGE,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**||| |**Annexure**|**2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN**||**BY THE**| |||**DEFACTO COMPLAINANT**||| |**Annexure**|**3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.**||| |||**172/2024 OF VILAPPISALA **|**POLICE STATION,**|| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**||| |**Annexure**|**4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND**|**CERTIFICATE**|| |**Annexure**|**5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION**||| |||**SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE**|||