Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeApplication allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Ranjith v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-02-23
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioner, Ranjith, is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) refrain from inducing or threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iii) shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender passport if any; (v) court may cancel bail for violations; (vi) applications to modify bail conditions permitted; (vii) IO may investigate and recover as permitted by law even while on bail, consistent with Sushila Aggarwal rule. The order emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the balancing of liberty with the investigation’s needs.
Final Disposition
Application allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ranjith aged 27 years S/o Reghu, Kottachira Kalayil House, Idapariyaram P.O., Elanthoor, Kozhancherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District, Pin - 689643

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Sr PP Neema T V

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. Promodh Kumar
  • • Maya Chandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the third accused, Ranjith, in Crime No.791/2023 of the Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petition seeks release during investigation when the accused has already spent about 58 days in judicial custody. The prosecution alleges that on 30.08.2023, at Pookkodu Ambedkar Colony, the second accused struck the scooter with a wooden log, the first accused inflicted a cut injury on the de facto complainant’s friend with a chopper, and both the de facto complainant and his friend were assaulted with stones by the second and third accused. The defense contends that the petitioner did not participate in the overt acts; the injuries were caused by accused 1 and 2, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Investigations are nearly complete and recovery has been effected. The Sessions Court’s dismissal of the bail plea is argued to be erroneous. The State counters with the seriousness of injuries, but concedes lack of antecedents and the late stage of investigation. The High Court, invoking principles from Supreme Court precedents emphasizing presumption of innocence and the bail-as-rule doctrine, ultimately allows bail with stringent conditions. The decision reflects a balance between individual liberty under Article 21 and the legitimate interest in the ongoing investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSections 341, 324, 307, 506(ii), 326, 427 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
  • Bail is the rule; jail is the exception
  • Undertrial detention infringing Article 21 of the Constitution
  • Recovery and other procedures may be conducted without denying bail (as per Sushila Aggarwal principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused is entirely innocent; the FIR does not attribute any specific overt act to him; the injuries were caused by accused 1 and 2; the petitioner has spent 58 days in judicial custody and the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected; the Sessions Judge’s order dismissing bail was erroneous; the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is ready to comply with stringent conditions; bail is a matter of right in appropriate circumstances, and detention would violate Article 21 if continued without just cause. The petitioner submits that the court should exercise its discretion in favor of bail to avoid punitive pre-conviction detention and to ensure fair investigation, provided proper conditions are imposed.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counsel acknowledges that the injuries to the victims are serious, but notes that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner; the petitioner has no prior criminal history; the investigation is near completion and recovery has been effected. The State contends that due to the gravity of the alleged offences and the risk of tampering or flight, bail should not be granted lightly, and the court may consider appropriate conditions or dismissal if warranted.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI[2012 1 SCC 40]PositiveCited to affirm the presumption of innocence and the principle that imprisonment before conviction should not be used as a default reason to deny bail.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.[(2018) 3 SCC 22]PositiveCited for the maxim that bail is a rule and detention is an exception, guiding the exercise of discretion in bail matters.
State of Kerala v. Raneef[(2011) 1 SCC 784]PositiveCited to highlight that indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners infringes Article 21, supporting timely consideration of bail.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[2020 (1) KHC 663]PositiveCited for the principle that conditions may be imposed and that investigations may proceed even after bail, reflecting modern bail jurisprudence.

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 Ranjith 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** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.791/2023 OF Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** **RANJITH AGED 27 YEARS S/O REGHU, KOTTACHIRA KALAYIL HOUSE,IDAPARIYARAM P.O.,ELANTHOOR, KOZHANCERRY THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689643** **BY ADVS. M.PROMODH KUMAR MAYA CHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in Crime No.791/2023 of the Aranmula Police Station , registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs 341, 324, 307, 506(ii), 326, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 30.08.2023, at around 5.30 p.m., while the de facto complainant and his friend were travelling on a Scooter, at a place named Pookkodu Ambedkar Colony, the 2[nd] accused hit on the Scooter with wooden log and the de facto complainant and his friend fell down from the Scooter. Then the 1[st] accused inflicted a cut injury on the de facto complainant's friend with a chopper and when he **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **3** attempted to ward off the injury, he sustained a deep injury on his left hand . Similarly, when the de facto complainant tried to dissuade the accused from causing injuries, the 1[st] accused inflicted a cut injury on the de facto complainant using the same weapon above his left eye. Then the 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused attacked the de facto complainant and his friend by striking them with stones. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.M.Promodh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. Even going by the allegations in the FIR, there is no specific overt act alleging against the petitioner. It was the accused 1 and 2 who caused grievous injuries to the injured. The petitioner has been in judicial **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **4** custody for the last 58 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously dismissed the petitioner's application for bail on the assumption that it was the petitioner, who inflicted the injuries. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the injured had suffered serious injuries on different parts of their bodies. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that a specific overt act is alleged against the accused 1 and 2, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 58 days, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **5** effected. However, 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 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **6** 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 the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 58 days 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **7** 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 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **8** 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 by the court below. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well **BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024** **9** 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