Prabhul K.P v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2904 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1275/2023 OF Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1914 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` PRABHUL K.P AGED 29 YEARS ``` ``` S/O SURENDRAN, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670741 ``` ``` BY ADV M.R.SASITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT SEETHA S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 12[th] 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.1275/2023 of the Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused (12 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 365 & 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 7.12.2023, at around 20.30 hours, while the de facto complainant and his friend were travelling in a car, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit dacoity, came in different vehicles and blocked the vehicle of the de facto complainant representing themselves as police officials. They then dragged the **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` defacto complainant and his friend from the car and assaulted them. Thereafter, they robbed the money kept in the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.M.R Sasith, 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. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences under Sections 365 and 395 of the IPC will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2024, which is nearly 83 days, the investigation in the case is not complete, and the final report has not been filed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. Hence, the application may be allowed. **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other crimes, namely Crime No.920/2015 and Crime No.2/2020 for committing the predicate offences under Sections 338 and 308 of the IPC, respectively. It is further contended that the investigation in the case is in progress and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would tamper with evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he and other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, stopped the vehicle of the defacto complainant, assaulted him and his friend, and robbed an amount of Rs.20,00,000,/-. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 83 days, the investigation in the case is practically **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` complete, and the 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 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. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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 an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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; ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2904 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. (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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** 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/-** mtk/12.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **B.A. No.2904 of 2024** ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2904/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1275/2023 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD ``` ``` Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2024 IN CRL.MC NO. 102/2024 IN CRIME 1275/2023 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD ``` - **`Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN BA NO 1944/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA`** ``` Annexure 4ORDERDATED25-03-2024INBAIL APPL.1914/2024 ON HIGH COURT ```