Aji vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.84/2024 of the Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 21.1.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 21.1.2024 at around 00.15 hours, the accused 1 to 5 trespassed into the hall of the informant’s father’s house and caught hold of the informant’s father and pushed him. When the informant’s brother tried to save his father, the first accused pushed the informant's brother also. Further, the second accused attempted to hit one Sooryan with an iron rod on his head. However, he evaded the attack, but it hit on his left hand and caused a ligament fracture. Yet, again the second accused hit Sooryan on his head and inflicted a cut injury, which caused profuse bleeding. The fourth accused also hit Sooryan and the third accused hit the informant on his head. The accused also jointly hit the informant’s father and caused injuries to him. In the attack, the informant’s brother lost his gold chain having a value of Rs.1/- Lakh. Had the injured not evaded the attacks, it would have resulted in loss of their lives. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.V.A Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. In fact, the informant is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 21.1.2024. The investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He made available the treatment certificate of the injured named, Sooryan to substantiate the fact that he suffered a fracture of the fifth metacarpal. He submitted that the first accused has absconded. However, the fourth accused was granted an order of pre-arrest bail. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the iron rod and the punch knuckle have been recovered. The Investigating Officer got custody of the petitioners for one day on 29.1.2024. Hence, he prayed that the application may be dismissed.

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 a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

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.

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.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 21.1.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 petitioners 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. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].