Allan Abhilash vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.459/2024 of the Thrithala

Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 294(b), 332, 307

& 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(‘IPC’, for short). The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 15.06.2024, at around 21.55 hours, when the Police party was on patrolling duty, they saw a car bearing

No.KL-52-P-4422 parked on the road in a suspicious circumstance. When the de-facto complainant and a Civil Police Officer went to check the car,

the first accused suddenly reversed the car and hit the de-facto complainant. The accused hurled abuses at the de-facto complainant and threatened

to do away with his life. The de-facto complainant suffered injuries due to the said incident. The accused deterred the de-facto complainant from

discharging his official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Vijayabhanu. P, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of

the First Information Report would substantiate that the offences under Sections 332 & 307 of the IPC have been deliberately incorporated by the

Investigating Officer to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is a 19-year-old boy and has been languishing in jail for the last 16 days, the

investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Moreover, the

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner attempted to do away with the life of the de-facto

complainant. She made available the accident register-cum-wound certificate of the de-facto complainant dated 24.06.2024, issued by the Malankara

Orthodox Syrian Church Medical Mission Hospital, Kunnamkulam, to substantiate that he had suffered abrasions over his body. He submitted that if

the petitioner is released on bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 15.06.2024, when the Police party attempted to check his vehicle, he intentionally reversed the vehicle

and attempted to hit on the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant suffered injuries. The petitioner deterred the de-facto complainant from

discharging his official duty. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 16 days, the investigation in the case is

complete, and the recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

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.

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 compassionate manner.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, is the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be

denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.

On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and particularly

considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 16 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been

effected and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite 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 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].