Sreejith.K v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 1945 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.115/2024 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SREEJITH.K, AGED 34 YEARS S/O SREENIVASAN (LATE), KUNNATH HOUSE, PUTHIYAVALAPPU, PUTHIYANGADI MADAYI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670304 BY ADVS.P.S.BINU K.SEENA ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` 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 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.115/2024 of Payangadi Police Station, Kannur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 326 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 11.02.2024, at around 20.30 hours, the accused, with an intention to commit an offence, trespassed into the house of the compound of the sister of the de-facto complainant, wrongfully restrained the husband of the de-facto complainant, and attempted to commit his _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:3:-_ murder by beating him on his head with a crowbar. The injured suffered serious injuries, including a head injury. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. P.S. Binu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior 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 a case and a countercase registered in connection with the incident. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:4:-_ 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner had hit the injured on his head and he suffered serious injuries. She made available the accident register-cum-wound certificate issued by the AKG Memorial Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery, dated 15.02.2024 to show that the injured had suffered a head injury and his condition was critical. She submitted that the investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2024. There is a counter case registered against the de-facto complainant as Crime No.119/2024 of the very same Police Station for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:5:-_ Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 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 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 _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:6:-_ 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 rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.02.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:8:-_ - (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 filed and entertained before 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, _B.A.No.1945/2024_ _-:9:-_ 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** DST/01.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge