Pavithran v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5694 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.381/2024 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN CRMC NO.1152 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` PAVITHRAN AGED 60 YEARS MOHANALAYAM, PANJARAMUKK, PERINGALAM AMSOM, PULLOOKKARA DESOM, P O PERINGATHUR, TRHALASSERY TALUK, KANNUT DISTRICT, PIN - 670675 ``` ``` BY ADV K.P.HAREENDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SMT SEETHA S SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`2`** ## **Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 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. 381/2024 of the Chokli Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to on judicial custody 22.06.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 21.06.2024, at around 21.00 hours, the accused, with an intention to commit a murder of the defacto complainant/ his wife, tightened a cloth around her neck, hit her head against a wall, and thereafter attempted to suffocate her with a pillow by pressing it against her face. The reason for the assault was that the defacto complainant questioned the petitioner’s out of the marriage relationship with another woman. The defacto **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`3`** complainant suffered serious injuries in the incident Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Hareendran. K.P, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha. S, 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. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`4`** case is in progress. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant dated 22.06.2024, issued by the Community Health Centre, Palloor, to substantiate the nature of the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. She stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing the same act and murdering the defacto complainant. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that, on 21.06.2024, the petitioner attempted to murder the defacto complainant since she had questioned his fidelity. The said accusation stands prima facie corroborated by the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant referred to above. However, that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of the trial. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`5`** been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 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. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`6`** exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected, 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 satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`7`** 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 on every third Saturday till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.381/2024; - (ii) The petitioner shall not enter the police station limits where the defacto complainant is residing till the conclusion of trial in Crime No. 381/2024, other than for reporting before the Investigating Officer as ordered by this Court; - (iii) 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; - (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (v) 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; ## **B.A. No.5694 of 2024** **`8`** - (vi) 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; - (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below; - (viii) 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** mtk/22.07.2024