Sijil Salim v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.1987 of 2024 ## **`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. 1987 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.947/2023 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SIJIL SALIM AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SALIM, KUTTIPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, VADAMA, MALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680732 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER E.A.HARIS MUHAMMED YASIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 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: ``` 2 BA No.1987 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1987 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **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 fourth accused in Crime No.947/2023 of the Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused (sixteen in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 201, 341, 324, 395, 397, 465, 471, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 2.1.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 13.12.2023 at around 8.00 hours, while the de facto complainant was travelling in a car from Mysore, after purchasing gold, and when he reached Thamarassery, the accused went in two vehicles and intercepted the car of the de 3 BA No.1987 of 2024 facto complainant. They pulled down the de facto complainant from the car and assaulted him with an iron rod and robbed Rs.68/- Lakh from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Ahammad Saheer M.A, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2.1.2024, which is 84 days, the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 4 BA No.1987 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that eight of the other accused are still at large and a substantial amount has to be recovered. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had intercepted the car of the de facto complainant and robbed an amount of Rs.68/- Lakh from the car. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 2.1.2024, which is 84 days. 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 considered as punitive and 5 BA No.1987 of 2024 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 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 anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record and the rival submissions made across the 6 BA No.1987 of 2024 Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2.1.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and that the 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, 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 Tuesday and Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; 7 BA No.1987 of 2024 (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, Kozhikode without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court. (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered 8 BA No.1987 of 2024 to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any 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/- sks/26.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**