Ramraj and P. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3547 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.198/2024 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 IN CMP NO.889 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 : ``` ``` 1RAMRAJ, AGED 38 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,SREEHARI BHAVAN, CHURAKKULAM UPPER DIVISION, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685533 ``` ``` 2P. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O PERIYASWAMY,MALATHI BHAVAN, MANJUMALA LD BHAGAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA,MANJUMALA VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685533 ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.K.SHYJU GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN VISHNU MOHAN SAFNA P.S. ATHIRA PADMENDHU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 28[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 accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.198/2024 of the Vandiperiyar Police Station, Idukki, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 341, 324, 326 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 11.03.2024, at around 23.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, pelted stones on the house of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the second accused hurled obscene words at the defacto complainant and threatened to murder him. ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** Subsequently, the accused 3 and 4 dragged the defacto complainant out of his house, and the first accused brandished a knife at the defacto complainant and inflicted a cut injury on him causing grievous injuries. The second accused also hit the defacto complainant with an iron rod. The defacto complainant suffered multiple injuries, including a fracture. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. N.K. Shyju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema.T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. The accused 3 and 4 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as per **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` order in B.A.No. 3472/2024. The petitioners are at par with the said accused and are entitled to the same benefit. In any given case, the investigation is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners, who have inflicted grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is a likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. However, she did not dispute the fact that the accused 3 and 4 have been released on bail by this Court and that the petitioners are persons without criminal antecedents. **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that it was the specific overt act alleged against the accused that the petitioners have inflicted grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. The allegation against the accused 3 and 4 is that they assisted the accused 1 and 2. Indisputably, the accused 3 and 4 have already been released on bail by this Court as per order in B.A.No. 3472/2024. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 46 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, I do not find that the petitioners have any criminal antecedents. 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 ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** ## **`6`** 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 **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. 9. 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. ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** 12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 41 days, that the accused 3 and 4 have been released on bail by this Court, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** 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; (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 him 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, - if any, before the court below at the time of execution of ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** ``` 9 ``` 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; (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 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 petitioners even while ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.3547 of 2024** 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].** mtk/28.05.24 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**