Praveen A. and Sureshkumar K.N. v. State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Manimala Police Station, Manimala, Kottayam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 692 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1224/2023 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 117/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS** ## **COURT,KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3:** **1 PRAVEEN.A AGED 43 YEARS S/O APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, THAYYIL PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, PERINGARA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689108 2 SURESHKUMAR.K.N AGED 60 YEARS S/O T.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, KOROTH, POOVATHOLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686544 BY ADVS. P.HARIDAS BIJU HARIHARAN SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW P.C.SHIJIN RISHIKESH HARIDAS ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB SAI KRISHNAN UNNITHAN V.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANIMALA POLICE STATION, MANIMALA.KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686543** **BY ADVS. C.S.MANILAL – FOR DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/INTERVENOR S.NIDHEESH** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S ,SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024,** **THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 3 in crime No.1224/2023 of the Manimala Police Station, Kottayam, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 323, 324, 325, 326, 308, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 30.11.2023 at around 5.45 p.m the accused in prosecution of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons, including iron sticks and a gun, and with an intention to commit culpable homicide blocked the vehicle of the defacto-complainant. The first accused hit on the face of the defacto-complainant and the second accused **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **3** hit on the hand of the wife of the de-facto complainant with a wooden stick. The accused 3 to 5 uttered obscene words and the first accused jointly yielded a gun and threatened to do away the lives of the de-facto complainant and his wife. The sixth accused also caused damage to the vehicle in which the defacto-complainant was travelling. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Haridas P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant/intervenor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The police have deliberately incorporated non-bailable offences due to the influence of the defacto-complainant. There are civil disputes **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **4** between the parties arising out of an agreement executed between the father of the defacto-complainant and the 5[th] accused. It is an offshoot of the above litigation, that the present crime has been registered. At any rate, the accused have been in judicial custody for the last two months. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. This Court has already released the second accused on bail by the order dated 07.02.2024 in B.A.No.836 of 2024. The petitioners are at par with the said accused. The wound certificates of the injured would show that the ingredients of Sections 326 & 308 are not attracted to the facts of the case. As the petitioners have been languishing in jail for the last 30 days, they may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the petitioners have **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **5** committed a very gruesome crime by holding the defactocomplainant and his wife at ransom. They inflicted serious injuries on them. The wound certificate of the wife of the defacto-complainant shows that she had sustained a fracture on her hand. The first accused had also yielded a gun for which Section 27 of the Arms Act has been incorporated. The investigation is not yet completed. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the second accused has been enlarged on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the defactocomplainant/intervenor vehemently opposed the application. He contended that the accused have taken law into their own hands. The case cannot be treated as an ordinary one. The accused were armed with deadly weapons including a gun. **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **6** They have encroached into the property of the defactocomplainant and his sister. The defacto-complainant and his family members are apprehensive that the accused will do away with their lives. They have moved this Court for an order of police protection. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them finishing off the defacto-complainant and his family members. At any rate, the investigation in the case is not complete. Therefore, the applications may be dismissed. 7. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 30.11.2023 in the evening hours, the accused in prosecution of their common intention waylaid the defacto-complainant and his wife and the first accused hit on the face of the defacto-complainant and the second accused hit on the hand of the wife of the defacto-complainant with a wooden stick, and she sustained a fracture. The predicate offences are **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **7** Sections 326 & 308 of IPC. 8. Indisputably, the second accused was arrested on 04.12.2023 and the accused 1 & 3 were arrested on 04.01.2024. I have gone through the wound certificates of the defacto-complainant and his wife dated 30.11.2023 issued by the Aravinda Hospitals, Ponkunnam. The wound certificate of the defacto-complainant shows that he had only suffered a abrasion over his chest and a black eye. On the contrary, the wound certificate of the wife of the defactocomplainant shows that she suffered a fracture on the right finger proximal phalanx, which was caused by the second accused. By the order in B.A.No.836/2024, this Court has enlarged the second accused on bail on the ground that the investigation is practically completed and recoveries have been effected. 9. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** , [2012 1 SCC 40], the **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **8** 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 10. 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. 11. 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 **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **9** 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. 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, rival submissions across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the prosecution does not have a case that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, that the second accused has been released on bail by this Court and that the petitioners are in custody for the last one month, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications. 13. In the result, the applications are allowed, by **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **10** directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing separate bonds 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 petitioners shall appear before the Officer on - Investigating 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. They 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; - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **11** if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) The petitioners shall furnish their present address and permanent address, and their mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; - (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 petitioners even while the **BAIL APPL.NO.692 OF 2024** **12** 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** ## **shg**