PRAVEESH C., VIPINLAL C. and VINEESH M. v STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4409 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.196/2024 OF Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 PRAVEESH .C, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. PRAKASHAN, CHAMERI HOUSE, PARAL, CHEMBRA, PALLUR P.O. KANNUR DJSTRICT,, PIN - 673310`** - **`2 VIPINLAL.C, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.VINODKUMAR.C,CHEERANKOTHOUSE,KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 670621`** - **`3 VINEESH.M, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN, VINEESH BHAVAN, KANNAVAM P.O., PAZHASSIMUKKU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643`** ``` BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sr PP Sri C.S Hrithwik ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.4409 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.4409 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 5[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 accused 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.196/2024 of the Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 13.3.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; On 27.2.2024, at around 17.30 hours, when the de facto complainant and his friend were coming from Mananthavady in a car, the accused came in another vehicle with an intention to commit robbery and they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friend and looted the mobile phone of the de facto complainant, a 3 BA No.4409 of 2024 sum of Rs.23,00,000/- kept in the car and the key of the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.P.P Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. There are no incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioners have committed the above offences as alleged by the prosecution. The very fact that the de facto complainant did not identify the petitioners on the date of incident itself shows the hollowness in the complaint. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 83 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 4 BA No.4409 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioners are history-sheeters. The petitioners 1 and 2 are involved in two crimes and the third petitioner/fourth accused is involved in eight crimes including for allegedly committing an offence under Sec.302 of the IPC. The investigation in the case is in progress. He stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is a likelihood of them tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, they in furtherance of their common intention had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and robbed his mobile phone, a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- and key of his car. Indisputably, the first accused is involved in two crimes of the year 2018, the second accused is involved in two crimes of the year 2017 and the fourth accused is involved in eight crimes of which one of the crimes is of the year 2024 for allegedly committing the offence under Sec.302 of the IPC. 5 BA No.4409 of 2024 The allegation is that the accused 1 to 5 had intercepted the vehicle of the de facto complainant and looted his mobile phone as well as money. 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. 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. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the 6 BA No.4409 of 2024 materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the third petitioner is a person who is involved in eight other crimes including an offence under Sec.302 of the IPC in the year 2024, but the petitioners 1 and 2 are alleged to have committed the above offences eight years back, I am of the view that the antecedents of the petitioners 1 and 2 is of not much relevance for the purpose of enlarging them on bail especially since they have been in judicial custody for the last 83 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Thus, I hold that the application can be partly allowed by enlarging the petitioners 1 and 2 on bail and dismissing the application filed by the third petitioner. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 and dismiss the application filed by the third petitioner. In the result, (i) The application filed by the third petitioner is dismissed. 7 BA No.4409 of 2024 (ii) The application filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 is allowed by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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: (iii) The petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioners 1 and 2 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; 8 BA No.4409 of 2024 (v) The petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; (vi) The petitioners 1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (vii) 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. (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. 9 BA No.4409 of 2024 (ix) 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 1 and 2 even while the 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/-** sks/5.6.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**