Sreejith v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.1522 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1522 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.157/2024 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station, ``` ``` Palakkad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SREEJITH AGED 21 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, ERANDATH HOUSE, IHDP COLONY, NELLIYAM PADAM, OLASHERRY POST, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678551 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Seetha S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.1522 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1522 of 2024** ## **----------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.157/2024 of the Town South Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (nine in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 31.1.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 30.1.2024 at around 22.30 hours, the accused 1 to 9 in prosecution of their common intention formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and the accused 1 to 3 3 BA No.1522 of 2024 restrained the defacto complainant. The first accused hit him on his head and the second accused hit him on his leg with reapers and the other accused assaulted him with hands. They have also caused damage to his motor cycle. Had the defacto complainant not evaded the attacks, who would lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.A Johnson, the 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 levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the first information report and first information statement would substantiate that the offences under Secs 326 and 308 have been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner has been in judicial 4 BA No.1522 of 2024 custody since 31.1.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, 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 there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner who hit the defacto complainant on his leg with reapers, which led to an open fracture on his right leg. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The essence of the prosecution allegation is that the accused 1 and 2 assaulted the defacto complainant/injured with reapers on his head and leg and the injured suffered a fracture on his right leg. Indisputably, the petitioner has been 5 BA No.1522 of 2024 in judicial custody since 31.1.2024, that the recovery has been effected and that the investigation in the case is practically complete. 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 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 6 BA No.1522 of 2024 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 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 31.1.2024, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, 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 7 BA No.1522 of 2024 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: (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 8 BA No.1522 of 2024 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) 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 9 BA No.1522 of 2024 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/29.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**