Sajeev @ Appi and Siddik v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 2155 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.132/2024 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:`** ``` 1SAJEEV @ APPI AGED 44 YEARS S/O SHAHUL MAJEED, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, THALAYAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501 2SIDDIK AGED 33 YEARS S/O SHAHUL MAJEED, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, THALAYAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501 BY ADVS. R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308) G.SUDHEER SMRITHI S.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV SMT. NEEMA T. V. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 2155 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.132/2024 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294(b) and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners were arrested on 23.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 21.01.2024 at around 23.00 hours, the accused three in number, attacked the defacto complainant and his ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024`** friend using dangerous weapons and attempted to murder them. The third accused uttered obscene words and pushed the defacto complainant. The second accused used a chopper and attempted to cut him on his neck. Since the defacto complainant evaded the attack, he sustained an injury on his elbow. The first accused used another chopper and cut on the defacto complainant’s left hand and caused grievous injuries to him. When the defacto complainant’s friend attempted to intervene, the first accused inflicted an injury on his hand also. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. R. Harikrishnan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners are totally ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024`** innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. Section 307 IPC has been deliberately incorporated for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024, which is nearly 60 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is still in progress. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 23.01.2024. ``` 5 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024 ``` 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, both of them used choppers and caused injuries to the defacto complainant and his friend. 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 **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 ``` 6 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024 ``` 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. 9. 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. 10. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024`** been effected, I am of the definite view that, the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9.00am and 11.00am for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024`** - 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 them 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 they are on bail; - iv. The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, 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 ``` 9 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024 ``` 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 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** BR ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.2155 OF 2024 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2155/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 132 OF 2024 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION DATED 22.01.2024 Annexure A2COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 130 OF 2024 ON NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION DATED 22.01.2024 Annexure A3COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO. 577 OF 2024 DATED 29.01.2024 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA Annexure A4COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C. NO. 371 OF 2024 DATED 17.02.2024 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A5COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MC NO. 568 OF 2024 DATED 11.03.2024 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```