High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-16Application allowed; bail granted to the sixth ...

Sarath @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-16
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO on Saturdays for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if any; (v) failure to comply permits cancellation of bail; (vi) ability to modify/deletion of conditions by the court; (vii) recoveries may be effected during bail as per Sushila Aggarwal guidance. The order directs adherence to law and safeguards and ends with the judge’s signature.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; bail granted to the sixth accused on specified terms.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sarath @ Kannan

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Liffy P. Francis

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 863 of 2024, grants bail to the sixth accused in Crime No. 1119/2023 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur. The petition, filed under Section 439 CrPC, contends that the accused has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2023, that the investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected, and that there is no weapon involved in the alleged non-bailable offence under Section 308 IPC. The prosecution contends the petitioner is a history-sheeter with eight prior cases and that release could lead to re-offending; however, most antecedents are old (pre-2012), and there is no active case since then. The court relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the general rule that bail is the norm while detention is an exception, and on the right to life under Article 21 for undertrials. It considers the fact that the investigation is nearly complete and recovery has been effected, rendering further detention unnecessary. The order ultimately allows bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the IO, prohibition on inducement or tampering with witnesses, prohibition on committing offences, surrender of passport, and potential modification of conditions. The court also references recoveries under guidance from Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, 294(b), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeKAAPA Act, 2014

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Bail is the rule; detention prior to conviction is the exception.
Undertrial prisoners’ right to life under Article 21 and protection against indefinite detention.
Recoveries can be effected on bail as permissible by established precedents (per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and stresses that he has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2023, with the investigation practically complete and recovery effected. The only non-bailable offence alleged is Section 308 IPC, but there is no weapon alleged and the overall evidence does not justify continued detention. The eight prior cases are old (before 2012) and do not establish current criminal propensity. Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of UP, the applicant invokes the presumption of innocence, the rule that bail is the norm, and the need to prevent indefinite detention, aligning with Article 21 protections. The court’s intervention is sought to avoid punitive pre-conviction detention and to ensure a just, compassionate application of bail, especially where investigation is substantially complete.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends the petitioner is a history-sheeter with eight prior cases and potential risk of reoffending if released. It emphasizes KAAPA Act involvement and argues the absence of weapon does not erase the gravity of the offences. It asserts that bail should be denied to maintain public order and prevent possible further offences, as the accused’s antecedents indicate a likelihood of recidivism. The State urges the court to weigh the seriousness of the alleged offences and the potential impact on the complainant and the community, notwithstanding the near completion of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Cited to support presumption of innocence and the general bail principle that liberty is preferred unless legally constrained.
Dataram Singh v. State of UP	[(2018) 3 SCC 22]	Positive	Used to reinforce that bail is the rule and pre-conviction detention is exceptional, to be decided on facts.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	[(2011) 1 SCC 784]	Positive	Cited for the principle that indefinite detention of undertrials violates Article 21, supporting bail consideration.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Referenced to justify that recoveries can be effected during bail under established Supreme Court guidance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sarath @ Kannan v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1119/2023 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 9/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SARATH @ KANNAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, MAMBULLY HOUSE, CHEMMAPPULLY COLONY DESOM,NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506 BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** This second application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 6[th] accused in Crime No.1119/2023 of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs341, 323, 324, 447, 294(b), 427 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 8 p.m. on 29.11.2023, the accused in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant (injured) and the 1[st] accused uttered obscene words and slapped the injured. The 2[nd] accused hit on the head of the injured and the accused 5 and 6 hit on the body of the injured. Accused 3 and 4 also hit on the back, neck and leg of the injured with an iron rod, and the injured suffered grievous injuries. The accused 3 and 4 destroyed the front glass of the vehicle BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 3 of the injured and caused a loss of Rs.17,000/-. If the injured had not prevented the attack, it would have resulted in the loss of his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Liffy P.Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2023, which is more than 78 days. The investigation in the case is completed and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the KAAPA Act in the year 2014. The BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 4 petitioner is also involved in eight other cases. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that the petitioner hit the injured and caused injuries to him. Indisputably, the only nonbailable offence alleged against the accused is under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation that the petitioner used any weapon to cause injuries to the injured. Therefore, the said offence, so far as the petitioner is concerned, prima facie will not be attracted. Now, coming to the antecedents, it is seen that the eight cases registered against the petitioner are all prior to 2012, which is more than twelve years back. After 2012, there is no criminal case registered against the petitioner. Thus, the contention that the petitioner presently has criminal antecedents is not very material. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 5 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. 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 6 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 a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 7 (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 8 (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 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 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/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/16.02.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 863 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 863/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO.1850/2023 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR Annexure 2 ORDER DATED 22-01-2024 IN BAIL APPL.9/2024 ON HIGH COURT