Adhithya C.K vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, BNSS), by the sole accused in Crime No.557/2024 of the Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.08.2024.

2.The  prosecution  case,  in  brief,  is  that;  on 26.07.2024, at around 10:15 hours, the accused snatched the gold chain of the first informant and threatened to kill her by using a knife. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

3.Heard; Sri.Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offence. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, and that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner has snatched the gold chain of the first informant and threatened to kill her. The fact remains 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. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail.

The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected, and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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 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;

(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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].