Vishal Soni v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 3482 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.547/2024 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` VISHAL SONI AGED 40 YEARS S/O DILEEPKUMAR, POONAM NIVAS, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680001 ``` ``` BY ADVS.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN ``` ## `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 25.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 25[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 first accused initially in Crime No.220/2024 of the Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur, and thereafter the same was transferred to Town East Police Station and renumbered as Crime No.547/2024, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: on 23.03.2024, at around 21 hours, while the first accused was a car driving bearing registration No.KL-08/AE-119 along with his parents – the accused Nos.2 & 3 – when the vehicle was nearing their residence, the vehicle ran over the body of an unknown _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:3:-_ person who was lying on the road. The victim suffered fatal injuries and lost his life due to lack of treatment. The accused also caused the disappearance of the evidence by putting the body in a trunk and throwing the body in the Nettissery field. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Dheeraj Rajan C., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 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. Even if the allegations in Annexure-2 First Information Report are taken on its face value, the same would not attract the offence under Section 304 of the IPC. There are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his estranged wife. The petitioner has been given the custody of his minor _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:4:-_ child by the Family Court. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials, it can be seen that the allegation against the petitioner and his parents is that the petitioner negligently ran over an unknown person who succumbed to fatal injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other accused attempted to destroy the evidence. The fact remains _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:5:-_ that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and 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 the 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 _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:6:-_ compassionate manner. 9. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 30 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, ## _B.A.No.3482/2024_ _-:8:-_ 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 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; _-:9:-_ ## _B.A.No.3482/2024_ - (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 is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/25.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge