Sudheer V.A. v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2061 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.246/2024 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SUDHEER V.A. AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ABDUL VAHAB, VANIYAPPURAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAJARAM BHAGAM, EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685588 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER E.A.HARIS MUHAMMED YASIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 8[th] 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.246/2024 of the Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 10.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; on 09.02.2024, at about 16.45 hours, the accused, with the intention to murder the defacto complainant and his son, uttered obscene words against them and beat the son of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant attempted to intervene in the matter, the accused **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` stabbed him on his left shoulder portion and left hand ring finger and he suffered injuries. The accused also threatened to kill the son of the defacto complainant, who was also stabbed on his left side of his neck and armpit. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Ahammad Saheer. M.A, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shynimol. V.O, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the offence under Section 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of the Annexure A1 would substantiate that the offence under Section 307 would not be attracted. In any given ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 58 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would sabotage the investigation. However she did not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 58 days and does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 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 ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** 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. 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 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 **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and particularly on comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 58 days, that the recovery has been effected, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and further that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: ## **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** ## **`7`** (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 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; (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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** 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 and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2061 of 2024** 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/-`** mtk/08.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**