SAJI @ SHAJI and ABHIN @ UNNIKUTTAN v. STATE OF KERALA and STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2386 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.243/2024 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.425 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SAJI @ SHAJI AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MANOHARAN, IDAYILA VEEDU, CHARUKADU, CHEMMAKKAD P.O, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN – 691601 ``` ``` 2ABHIN @ UNNIKUTTAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SHAJI, IDAYILA VEEDU, CHARUKADU, CHEMMAKKAD P.O, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN – 691601 BY ADVS.K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691601 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT NEEMA T V` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:2:-_ Dated this the 26[th] 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 Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.243/2024 of Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860('IPC', in short). The petitioners were arrested on 23.02.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: on 21.02.2024, at around 20.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention and out of the previous animosity towards the de-facto complainant, with an intention to commit the murder of the de-facto complainant, waylaid him and the first accused fisted _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:3:-_ him on his face and uttered obscene words, and the second accused kicked him down on the ground and stabbed him on his left hip with a scissors. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K. Siju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure-A1 First Information Report [FIR] would substantiate that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:4:-_ the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the recovery has been effected. 6. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the first accused had fisted the de-facto complainant and uttered obscene words at him and the second accused stabbed on his left hip with a scissors. Indisputably, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.02.2024, which is 33 days and 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 _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:5:-_ 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 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. 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. _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:6:-_ 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submission made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account that fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody 23.02.2024, that the recovery has been effected and the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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) 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. _B.A.No.2386/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 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 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. _-:8:-_ ## _B.A.No.2386/2024_ - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before 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 Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/26.03.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge