Satheesan v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.883/2023 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur** **PETITIONER/S:** **SATHEESAN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANIAN, PERATT HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, NELLAYI,MUKUNDAPURAM, ANANADAPURAM P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680305** **BY ADVS. M.V.VIPINDAS MEREENA.J.JOSEPH DIASTUS KOMATH N.P.SILPA DAISON KOMATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 SATATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1[st] accused in Crime No.883/2023 of the Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 294(b), 506(ii), 308 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 5 r/w Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and Sec. 9 B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act. The petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: around 7 p.m. on 02.11.2023, the accused 1 and 2 abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language and they criminally intimidated him and threatened to do away with him by brandishing a sword. When the defacto complainant made an attempt to escape, the 1[st] accused had thrown a fire cracker on the defacto complainant. But fortunately, the cracker did not explode. If it had exploded, it would have resulted in the death of the BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 3 defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.M.V.Vipindas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Rithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC will not be attracted. The said offence has been deliberately incorporated by the Investigating Officer to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.11.2023, which is more than 122 days. The investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report. The Investigating Officer has reported that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is an accused in 18 other cases of similar nature including for allegedly committing an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 122 days, that the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor by contending that out of the 18 cases, 14 cases have already ended in acquittal. There are only four cases registered against the petitioner, of which three are of the year 2022 and one of the year 2023. In the instant case, BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 5 the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Therefore, the petitioner's antecedents may not be taken as a consideration to deny bail to the petitioner. Hence, the application may be allowed. 7. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the prosecution allegations are that the accused 1 and 2 had allegedly abused the defacto complainant and intimidated him by brandishing a sword, and when he attempted to flee from the scene, the 1[st] accused threw a fire cracker on the defacto complainant. But, the fact remains that the fire cracker did not explode and the defacto complainant did not sustain any injury. 8. 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 6 conduct. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 7 Bar, and especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.11.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s 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 petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 8 (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; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thrissur without previous permission of the jurisdictional Court; (vi) 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 9 filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (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 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/04.03.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 1319 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1319/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 883/2023 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION AGAINST THE APPLICANT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC. NO.1907/2023 IN DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED ON 08.01.2024**