Sivapradas V.U and Ajith T.S v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.1585 of 2024 # **`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. 1585 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1090/2023 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1SIVAPRADAS V.U AGED 23 YEARS S/O. ULLAS, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURIYAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680683 ``` ``` 2AJITH T.S AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SREENIVASAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, PAREKKATTUKARA DESOM, MURIYAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680584 ``` ``` BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.1585 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1585 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 4[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 1 and 2 in Crime No.1090/2023 of the Aloor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 448, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 1.2.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: at around 21.30 hours on 11.11.2023, the accused stopped the de facto complainant and punched him with a weapon on his nose and the upper part of his left eye and ear. He was also kicked from behind. The accused also punched the wife of the de facto complainant and she too sustained 3 BA No.1585 of 2024 an injury. Thus, the accused had committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Vishnu Prasad Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 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. Pursuant to Annexure-2 order passed by this Court, the petitioners had surrendered before the Investigating Officer and were arrested on 1.2.2024. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. The petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 4 BA No.1585 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month and recovery has been effected. 6. 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 conduct. 7. 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 5 BA No.1585 of 2024 each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. 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. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that petitioners have been in judicial custody since 1.2.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 6 BA No.1585 of 2024 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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: (i) The petitioners 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. 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; 7 BA No.1585 of 2024 (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. (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 8 BA No.1585 of 2024 Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/sks/4.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**