Prasoon S v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4112 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.584/2024 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` PRASOON S, AGED 32 YEARS S/O SASI, PAYIKANDOM CHIRAYIL HOUSE, VILAKKUMARAM, MEPRAL, PERINGARA, PATHANTHITTA, PIN - 689108 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA NEELANJANA NAIR ANJANA SURESH.E NANMA.B.B LIDHIYA GEORGE RIYA KOCHUMMAN GAYATHRI C.H. REETHU JACOB ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689101`** ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2024 O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.584/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against the accused (3 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 294(b) and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.4.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 16.4.2024, at around 20.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and abused him in obscene language and, thereafter, the **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` first accused inflicted cut injury on his left knee. When the de facto complainant fell on the ground, the accused again inflicted injuries on his head, left side of his neck, left side of his shoulder and left elbow. The accused 2 and 3 aided the first accused in committing the above overt acts. 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 Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of Annexure A1 First Information Report would show that the above offence will not be attracted in the ## **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** ## **`4`** facts of the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and the first accused inflicted serious injuries on the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` complete and 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 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. **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.4112 of 2024** 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 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** rmm/7/6/2024