Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2958 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.112/2024 OF Parassala Police Station, ``` ``` Thiruvananthapuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` RATHEESH AGED 39 YEARS PANAVILA, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNANVILA, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695132 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.S.ANANDAN KANNAN J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.112/2024 of the Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 19.01.2024, at around 20.00 hours, the accused had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and hit him on his leg using an iron pipe. The defacto complainant suffered a fracture on his leg. After the defacto complainant fell down, the accused also fisted him on his face and suffered a fracture of his teeth. Thus, **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. R.S. Anandan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik., the learned 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. The offence under Section 326 of the IPC has been deliberately incorporated against the petitioner only to deny bail to him. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, the investigation in the case is not complete, and the recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` involved in seven other crimes. However, he did not dispute the fact that out of seven cases, six were prior to the year 2014, that the investigation in the present case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. 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 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 **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. 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 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 since 26.02.2024, 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. ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** 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 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** below. (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].** **Sd/-** mtk/12.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2958 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2958/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** - **`Annexure A1`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PARASSALA TALUK HOSPITAL IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A1 ``` ## **`Annexure A2`** - **`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SHO PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA DATED 15.03.2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A2.`** ## **`Annexure A3`** - **`THE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NUMBERED AS CRIME NO. 112/ 2024 DATED 19.01.2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A3`** ## **`Annexure A4`** - **`THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT ALONG WITH CASE DIARY DATED 26.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A4`** - **`Annexure A5 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, NEYYATTINKARA IN CRL. M.P. NO. 1360 OF 2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A5.`** ``` Annexure A6THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRL. M.C. NO. 767 OF 2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A6 ```