Rabhinesh K.V v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.62/2024 OF PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,** **Kannur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **RABHINESH. K.V AGED 22 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN. T.V, THEEKKARA VEEDU, KOOTTAPUNA, MADIKAI, KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671314** **BY ADVS. M.ANUROOP SHIJU PUTHIYA PURAYIL MURSHID ALI M. ABRAHAM RAJU CYRIAC** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.62/2024 of the Pariryaram Medical College Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs 341, 323,452, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 23.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 23.01.2024, at around 9.30 hours the accused trespassed into the complainant's house and beat the de facto complainant's wife. When the de facto complainant tried to intervene, the accused stabbed him also with a knife. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.M.Anuroop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **3** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offences alleged against the petitioner particularly Section 307 will not be attracted the facts of the case. The said offence has been incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She made available the Accident Register-Cum-Would Certificate of the three injured to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by them. She contended that the **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **4** investigation of this case is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, it would hamper the investigation. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 30 days, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 7. 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **5** 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. 8. in **State of Kerala v.** Subsequently, **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. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly after evaluating the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate of the three injured and finding that the **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **6** injured had not suffered any grievous injuries as alleged by the prosecution, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024, that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, that the investigation in the case is practically 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 Investigating Officer on 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **7** earlier. 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 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1332 OF 2024** **8** 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 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(J) JUDGE** lsn