Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizhinjam Police Station

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1658 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.135/2024 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SURESH KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT SREE VILASAM VEEDU, CHAVADINAADA, VENGANOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523 ``` ``` BY ADVS. REGINALD VALSALAN ANN MARIA FRANCIS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521 BY ADV SRI C S HRITHWIK – SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1658 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[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 sole accused in Crime No.135/2024 of the Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 28.01.2024, at around 19.30 hours, the accused attacked the defacto complainant with a sword and attempted to inflict an injury on the head of the defacto complainant. Since the defacto complainant warded off the attack, his life was saved. However, the accused hit ``` 3 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` the defacto complainant with a hammer on his left ear and caused him injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Reginald Valsalan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, 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 Annexure I FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 IPC will not be attracted. The said offence has been incorporated only to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not ``` 4 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` necessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the investigation of the case is still in progress. He made available the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate dated 28.01.2024 of the injured, to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by the injured. He submitted that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the materials on record, especially the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate, it is seen that the injured had suffered lacerated wounds and abrasions on the different parts of his body. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that the offence under Section 308 IPC will not be attracted. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], ``` 5 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` 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 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 ``` 6 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` 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. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly after going through the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate of the injured and prima facie being satisfied that the offence under Section 308 IPC will not be attracted, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. ``` 7 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` 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 ``` 8 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` 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. ``` 9 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` 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 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 ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1658 OF 2024 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1658/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO 135/2024 DATED 29.01.2024 LODGED AT THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION Annexure-2TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.142/2024 DATED 29.01.2024 LODGED AT THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION Annexure-3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO 386 OF 2024 PASSEDBYTHESESSIONSJUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure-4TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUE TO THE WIFE OF PETITIONER ON 28.1.2024 FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure-5TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER ON 28.1.2024 FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```