High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-30Allowed

Rajesh @ Pappali Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No.5617 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; the petitioner Rajesh @ Pappali Rajesh is directed to be released on bail on a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; subject to conditions (i)–(vii) enumerated in the order, including weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer, non-interference with witnesses, no commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passport if any, and the court’s power to cancel or modify bail for violation; Investigating Officer may pursue recoveries even on bail as per applicable law.
Final Disposition: Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajesh @ Pappali Rajesh

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Pramod
• Athul M.V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application concerns Rajesh alias Pappali Rajesh, the second accused in Crime No. 218/2024 of Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha, charged with offences under Sections 506(1), 541, 323 and 326 read with 34 IPC, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since 13.06.2024, seeks bail, noting that the investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected. It is argued that the inclusion of Section 326 aims to deny bail without warranted basis, and that co-accused 1 and 3 have already been released on bail. The prosecution counters that the petitioner has criminal antecedents across eight cases from 2009 to 2019 and that there is a real risk of witness intimidation and tampering if he remains at large. The court places weight on the presumption of innocence, the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception under Article 21, and relevant Supreme Court authorities including Hussainara Khatoon, Sanjay Chandra, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, noting that pre-conviction detention must be carefully justified. After considering the length of detention, completion of investigation, prior bail granted to co-accused, and lack of post-2019 cases, the court concludes that further detention is unnecessary and allows the bail application. The order imposes bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and conditions requiring weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer, non- interference with witnesses, no offence on bail, passport surrender (or an affidavit), and a provision for cancellation or modification of bail on violation, with authority to recover as needed under Sushila Aggarwal guidance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Sections 506(1), 541, 323 and 326 r/w 34 IPCArticle 21, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Presumption of innocence
Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
Antecedents alone shall not justify denial of bail
Court may impose/modify bail conditions (guidance from Sushila Aggarwal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication; there is no material linking him to the alleged offences. The inclusion of Section 326 appears to be an effort to deny bail. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for about 47 days; investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected. Co-accused 1 and 3 have already been granted bail. Eight prior crimes attributed to the petitioner occurred between 2009 and 2019, with no post-2019 cases; the fundamental presumption of innocence and the right under Article 21 warrant grant of bail, rather than indefinite detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail on grounds of criminal antecedents (eight cases) and the risk of witness intimidation and tampering if released. It is argued that past conduct and the seriousness of the offences justify denial of bail, and that the Court previously refused bail. The prosecution contends bail denial is warranted to ensure fair investigation and avoid interference.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Cited to support the principle that antecedents alone do not justify denial of bail; bail is the general rule.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Affirms presumption of innocence and that imprisonment prior to conviction should not be used to deny bail solely on former conduct.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Links prolonged pre-trial detention to potential infringement of Article 21 rights of the undertrial.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for guidance on maintenance/imposition of bail conditions and enforcement while on bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rajesh @ Pappali Rajesh v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5617 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.218/2024 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:`** ``` RAJESH @ PAPPALI RAJESH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. CHITHRAN, PAPPALIYIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., KANJIKKUZHY PANCHAYATH WARD NO. 9, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525 ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD ATHUL M.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SMT NEEMA T V SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.5617 of 2024 2 ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2024 O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 218/2024 of the Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 541, 323 and 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘the IPC'). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to on judicial custody 13.06.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 07.03.2024, at around 20.50 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the first informant and his brother, and the first accused hit the first informant with an iron pipe, and he suffered a dislocation to his left elbow. When the BA No.5617 of 2024 3 first informant fell down, the first and second accused hit and kicked him. When the first informant’s brother attempted to intervene in the matter, the second accused hit him with an iron pipe, and he suffered a fracture of his hand. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. B.Pramod., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 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. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 326 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The accused 1 and 3 have been enlarged on bail as per Annexure A3 and A4 orders passed by this Court and the Court of Session. The petitioner is at par BA No.5617 of 2024 4 with the said accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in this case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in eight other crimes of a similar nature. She stated that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. It is taking into account the petitioner's background, that this Court and the Court of Session did not grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, wrongfully restrained the first informant and his brother, and the petitioner hit the first informant’s brother, and he suffered a fracture on his hand. The Investigating Officer BA No.5617 of 2024 5 has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. 7. On a perusal of the bail objection report, I find that the eight crimes registered against the petitioner are between the period from 2009 to 2019. There is no case registered against the petitioner subsequent to 2019. Whether or not the cases are pending consideration or have ended in conviction/ acquittal are not borne out born out from the bail objection report. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the accused 1 and 3 have been enlarged on bail as per Annexure 3 and 4 orders as referred to above. 8. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that BA No.5617 of 2024 6 person. 9. 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. 10. 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 infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. 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. The right to bail cannot be denied BA No.5617 of 2024 7 merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected, that the accused 1 and 3 have been enlarged on bail as per Annexure 3 and 4 orders, and further that all the earlier crimes registered against the petitioner are prior to 2019, I am of the firm 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 BA No.5617 of 2024 8 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 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 BA No.5617 of 2024 9 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, JUDGE** mtk/30.07.2024.