Prakash v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam

1 BA No.1975 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1975 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.86/2024 OF ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION, Kollam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` PRAKASH AGED 49 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAVAYAL VEEDU, PANAMOODU, NEERAVIL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601 ``` ``` BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sr PP Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.1975 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1975 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.86/2024 of the Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 324 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 18.01.2024, at around 07.30 p.m., the accused with an intention to commit murder of the informant, trespassed into his house and abused him and, thereafter, hacked him with a chopper and inflicted serious injuries on his head. As a result of the injuries, the 3 BA No.1975 of 2024 informant’s left hand got paralyzed. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Pratheesh.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the FIR would substantiate that the offence under Sec.307 will not be attracted to the facts of the case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. This Court has already dismissed the petitioner’s earlier application by Annexure A3 order. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the 4 BA No.1975 of 2024 petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3.2.2024 , which is 53 days. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the accused with an intention to commit the murder of the informant, had trespassed into his house and hacked him with a chopper and inflicted serious injuries on his head. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3.2.2024. 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 5 BA No.1975 of 2024 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 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 materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3.2.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the 6 BA No.1975 of 2024 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 petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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 Tuesday and 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 7 BA No.1975 of 2024 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 the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if 8 BA No.1975 of 2024 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/- sks/26.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**