Sujith v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1782 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.174/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`PALAKKAD`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:`** ``` SUJITH AGED 36 YEARS S/O SUNDARAN, KULATHUNGAL VEEDU, POTHAPARA, KANAKKENTHURUTHY PO, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683 ``` ``` BY ADV M.VIVEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV SMT. SEETHA S. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1782 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[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 third accused in Crime No.174/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 10.02.2024 at around 21.00 hours, while the defacto complainant was passing through the road, the accused in furtherance of their common intention questioned the ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** defacto complainant, and the first accused broke a beer bottle and attempted to stab him. Although the defacto complainant evaded the attack, he got injured on his right thumb. The accused 2 to 6 also attempted to assault the defacto complainant. Even though the defacto complainant attempted to flee from the scene of occurrence, the first accused hit him with a flower pot. Then, the accused 3 to 5 hit him with their hands. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. M. Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of FIR would ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** substantiate that the offence under Section 308 IPC will not be attracted to the facts of the case. The said offence has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner. The Wound Certificate would establish that the injured has not suffered any grievous injuries as alleged by the prosecution. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. By order dated 07.03.2024 in B.A. No.1719/2024, this Court has released the accused 2, 4 and 5 on bail. The petitioner is also entitled to a similar relief. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner. The investigation of the case is in progress. She made available the ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** Accident Register cum Wound Certificate of the injured dated 10.02.2024 issued by the Government Medical College, Thrissur. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the accused 2, 4 and 5 had been released on bail by this Court as per the order in B.A. No.1719/2024 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** 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 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and particularly after evaluating the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate of the injured, ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** which shows that he only suffered lacerated wounds, I am prima facie satisfied that the accusations levelled against the petitioner with respect to the offence under Section 308 IPC may not be attracted. In addition to the above, as the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and 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. 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: ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** - 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; - 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024`** 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 petitioner ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024 ``` 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** BR ``` 11 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1782 OF 2024 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1782/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT SHOWING ARREST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22-02-2024 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL`**