Yunis.K.P v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 1546 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.107/2024 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` YUNIS.K.P, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. YUSAF,KUMBALAPPURATH HOUSE, MATTAMBRAMPALLI, THALLASSERY.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670101 ``` ``` BY ADVS.CIBI THOMAS ANSIA K.A. AISHWARYA SHIVAKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670101 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 1[st] 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 accused in Crime No.107/2024 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 506 & 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 28.01.2024, at around 16.30 hours, the de-facto complainant/ the Assistant Excise Officer and his party had arrested one ‘Aslam’ with 20 grams of ganja. While were taking the accused in the Department vehicle, the accused in the instant crime restrained them in front of the Rajadhani Tourist Home, Thalassery, and enabled Aslam to escape from the ## _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:3:-_ custody of the excise officials. The accused also stabbed an excise official with a surgical blade which caused him injuries and prevented them from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offences under Sections 353 & 332 will not be attracted. There is nothing on record to substantiate that the excise officials sustained any injuries. It is only because of the previous animosity of the excise officials towards the petitioner, he has been made an accused in the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:4:-_ custody since 30.01.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been laid. 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 petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in nine other cases of the Thalassery Police Station, out of which, three cases are under the NDPS Act. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner and the other accused in the present crime had facilitated one Aslam who was found in _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:5:-_ possession of 20 grams of ganja, to escape from the custody of the excise officials. It is alleged that the petitioner stabbed one of the excise officials with a surgical blade. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024 and the investigation in the case is complete. 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 a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:6:-_ 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 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. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid, notwithstanding the antecedents of the petitioner, I am _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:7:-_ of the 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: - (i) The petitioner shall 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 _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:8:-_ while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thalassery, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court. - (v) 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; - (vi) 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. - (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the _B.A.No.1546/2024_ _-:9:-_ 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** DST/01.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge