Praveen Prasad v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Mavelikkara Police Station

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 4003 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.267/2024 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP NO.1209 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` PRAVEEN PRASAD, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. PRASAD, PRIYA BHAVANAM VEEDU, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690509 ``` ``` BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN – 690509 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT SEETHA S` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 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.267/2024 of the Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 325 & 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). and Section 92(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: on 12.03.2024, at around 20.30 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, the first accused struck the de-facto _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:3:-_ complainant with an iron rod, and the second accused hit him on his left shoulder with a stick. Thereafter, the accused Nos.2 to 6 had kicked him below his abdomen and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Rasheed C.Nooranad, 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 accusation levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 308 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:4:-_ 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner and the other accused have caused grievous injuries to the de-facto complainant. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other five accused had brutally assaulted the de-facto complainant, and had inflicted grievous injuries on him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically 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 _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:5:-_ 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. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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 _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:6:-_ infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, is 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. 12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:7:-_ materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 55 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 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 Officer on - Investigating 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; _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:8:-_ - (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; - (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 _B.A.No.4003/2024_ _-:9:-_ 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 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** DST/20.05.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge