Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4245 OF 2024 CRIME NO.517/2024 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` RATHEESH AGED 35 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT MANJAPPARA, THALIKUZHI DESOM, PULIMATH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695612 ``` ``` BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ PREETHA RANI M.S. SUMEEN S. MUHAMMED SWADIQ O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` 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 27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 27[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 first accused in Crime No.517/2024 of the Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 307 of the IPC was subsequently incorporated in substitution for Section 308. The petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 27.03.2024, at around 21.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons and attempted to murder him. The first accused caught hold **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` of the shirt of the defacto complainant, slapped him, and pushed him on the ground. The other accused hit and fisted the defacto complainant. Subsequently, the first accused chopped and hacked the defacto complainant on his right palm, causing a deep injury. The other accused also caused injuries to the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. J.R. Prem Navaz., the 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. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that even though the crime was initially registered for the predicate offence under Section 308 of the IPC, subsequently the Investigating Officer incorporated Section 307 of the IPC. The petitioner has caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would certainly affect the investigation and also the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with two other accused, had inflicted grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, the investigation in the case is ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** complete, and the recovery has been effected. 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. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** 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. 10. 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 petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** 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 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 **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` 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. ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.4245 of 2024** (viii) 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].** mtk/27.05.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**