Sajan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-04-16
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions: (i) petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (ii) if arrest is proposed thereafter, release on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; (iii) petitioner to appear for interrogation as required and to cooperate; (iv) no departure from the country without jurisdictional court’s permission; (v) no commission of similar offences; (vi) petitioner to appear before IO on Mondays and Fridays at 10 AM until final disposal; (vii) bail will be cancelable on violation; (viii) IO may investigate and recover as per law, including reference to Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions as set out in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajan

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.A. Anand
• Ninu M. Das

Counsels for Respondents

• C. Seena

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed by Sajan, the petitioner and accused no.1 in Crime No.159/2024 of Chingavanam Police Station, alleging offences under sections 323, 324, 341 and 308 read with 34 IPC. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard the matter on 16 April 2024. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 27 January 2024 near Podippara Church at Ithithanam, the accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attacked him with a stone. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the other co-accused have already been granted bail and that the petitioner is willing to comply with conditions; he also argued that the delay of 13 days in filing the complaint is not determinative of custody and that custodial interrogation may not be necessary. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition. The court considered both sides’ submissions and held that bail can be granted with stringent conditions, applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception as affirmed in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the IO within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, to furnish a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; to cooperate with investigation; to refrain from leaving India without court permission; to avoid similar offences; and to appear before the IO on designated days until final disposal, with non-compliance allowing cancellation of bail. The order also notes that the IO may conduct necessary investigations and asset recoveries as permitted by law, citing Sushila Aggarwal. The bail is thus granted subject to the specified conditions, balancing speedy trial with the presumption of innocence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that co-accused have been granted bail and that the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions. He contended that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the complaint, which should not automatically bar bail, and that custodial interrogation is not necessary given the nature of the offences and the likelihood of fair trial with proper supervision.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need for custodial interrogation or investigation to proceed unimpeded.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reinforce the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support that investigations and asset recoveries may be pursued even when the accused is on bail, per Supreme Court guidance.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2745 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.159/2024 OF Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ``` ``` SAJAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O LALAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O, KURICHI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686535 ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.A.ANAND NINU M.DAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY SMT.C.SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 2 ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2745 of 2024 ``` ``` ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of of April, 2024 ``` ## **`O R D E R`** ``` Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.159/2024 of Chingavanam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 2. The prosecution case is that on 27.01.2024 at about 10.30 p.m, at a place near Podippara Church at Ithithanam, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attacked him with a stone. ``` ``` 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ``` ``` 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 3 ``` submits that the other accused is already released on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. ``` ``` 5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I think that this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the petitioner, there is a delay of 13 days in filing the complaint. Whether the explanation for the delay is genuine or not is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. But the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. I think that bail can be granted to the petitioner with a condition that ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 4 ``` he will appear before the Investigating Officer twice in a week. ``` ``` 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 ``` ``` (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. ``` ``` 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: ``` ``` i. Petitioner shall appear before the ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 5 ``` Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; ``` ``` ii. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; ``` ``` iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; ``` ``` iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 6 ## **`permission of the jurisdictional Court;`** ``` v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; ``` ``` vi. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m till final disposal of the case. ``` ``` vii. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ``` ``` 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 ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 7 ``` 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/- ``` ``` P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/16/04/2024 ``` B.A. No.2745 of 2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2745/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 IN CRL. M.P.NO 484/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ``` ``` Annexure BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO.552/2024 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ```