Tijomon A.T v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5830 OF 2024`** ## **`CRIME NO.992/2024 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` TIJOMON A.T AGED 49 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, ERAPPANAL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.0., SOUTH PUNNAMATTAM KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 686 671 ``` ``` BY ADV. N.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 BY ADV. C.S HRITHWIK (SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE ``` ``` COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **ORDER Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2024.** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.992/2024 of the Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 308, 506(i)(ii), 323, 294(b), 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to on judicial custody 20.06.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 15.06.2024, at around 11:10 hours, when the de facto complainant had gone to his toddy shop to check the quality of the toddy, the accused, with an intention to murder the defacto complainant, hit the defacto complainant’s car with his jeep several times and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, he warded a ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` chopper and hurled abusive words at the defacto complainant. Subsequently, he bit on the right hand of the de facto complainant and hit him on his head with a stone and also caused damages of Rs.50,000/- to his car. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.N.A Shafeek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 308 of the IPC to see that the petitioner is not released on bail. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. He also submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in three other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had assaulted de facto complainant and bit him on his hand and he suffered injuries. It is also alleged that the petitioner caused damage of Rs.50,000/- to the defacto complainant’s car. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 7. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person. 8. 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. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is complete and 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, but subject to stringent conditions. 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: ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Officer on - Investigating 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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 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 ``` ``` JJ ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NO.5830/2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5830/2024`** |**`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES`**||| |---|---|---| |**`Annexure A`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 IN CRI. MC NO.`**|| ||**`543/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT THODUPUZHA`**|| |**`Annexure B`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE`**|**`ISSUED FROM`**| ||**`FAMILY HEALTH CENTER KADAVOOR`**|| |**`Annexure C`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHANGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM IDUKKI`**|| ||**`DISTRICT COOPERATIVE HOSPITAL`**|| |**`Annexure D`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.06.2024 ISSUED FROM`**|| ||**`IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL BY`**|**`REFERRING THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER FOR FURTHER DETAIL EXAMINATION`**|| |||`//TRUE COPY//`| |||`PA TO JUDGE`|