Aneesh S. Nair vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.315/2024 of the Venmani Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (ten in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 20.4.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that; the de facto complainant had given his house on lease to two persons named Shyam and Sagar. The said two persons had a scuffle with one Rajeev (the brother of the de facto complainant) and friends on 14.4.2024. On seeing the fight between the two groups, the son of the de facto complainant intervened in the matter. Then, the accused stabbed the son of the de facto complainant with a sharp object. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Kiran Lal.M, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There are no incriminating materials to show the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.4.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, they had in furtherance of their common intention stabbed the son of the de facto complainant who suffered grievous injuries.

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.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the 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.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the

materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 45 days, that the investigation in the case is practically 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.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 them 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].