Reeshal and Visakh v. State of Kerala

B.A.No.1018 of 2024 1 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1018 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.2390/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1 REESHAL AGED 34 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, PULICKAL HOUSE, NJARACKAL PO, PRIYADARSINI ROAD, MAMPILLY, NJARACKAL, PIN - 682505 ``` ``` 2 VISAKH AGED 34 YEARS S/O WILSON, VENKAPPANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERY VYPE, AYYAMPILLY PO, KUZHUPPILLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682501 BY ADV K.V.SABU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY PP SMT NIMA JACOB ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1018 of 2024 2 **Dated this the 13[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.2390/2023 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 341, 363, 201 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested on 29.11.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 17.11.2023, at around 19.08 hours, while the de facto complainant was walking through the Thrissur Railway station road, the accused Nos.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and robbed 244 grams of gold having a value of Rs.10/- lakh and his B.A.No.1018 of 2024 3 mobile phone having a value of Rs.9,700/-. The other accused also facilitated the accused 1 and 2 to commit the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.V. Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Nima Jacob., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime. There are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners. Going by the allegations in the FIR, specific overt acts are alleged against the accused 1 and 2. By Annexure A3 order, this Court, taking note of the above facts, enlarged the 5[th] accused on bail. The petitioners are similarly placed with the 5[th] accused. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 29.11.2023. The B.A.No.1018 of 2024 4 investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. The petitioners are 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 there are specific allegations against the petitioners for committing the offences alleged in the FIR. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that, by Annexure A3 order, this Court has released the 5th accused on bail. She did not dispute the fact that the investigation in the case is at its fag end and the recovery has been effected. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [(2012) 1 SCC 40]** , B.A.No.1018 of 2024 5 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 compassionate manner. B.A.No.1018 of 2024 6 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 a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.11.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, and that by Annexure A3 order this Court already enlarged the 5[th] accused on bail, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' continued B.A.No.1018 of 2024 7 detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, but subject to stringent conditions: In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 B.A.No.1018 of 2024 8 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 he is on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of 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. B.A.No.1018 of 2024 9 (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 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].** Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/13.02.24 B.A.No.1018 of 2024 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1018/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.1.2024 IN BA NO.11032/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2ORIGINAL OF THE ORDER DT.27.1.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO.747/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JFCM COURT-I, THRISSUR ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3A COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.1.2024 IN BA NO.545/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ```