Arun V. S 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 1 and 2 in Crime No.119/2024 of the Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 11.02.024.

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that; on 10.2.2024, at around 23.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to murder the friend of the de facto complainant, named Sarath (deceased), the first accused broke a beer bottle and stabbed the deceased on his chest and murdered him. Then, the second accused fisted the de facto complainant and his other friend named Adarsh on his chest and also stamped him. Subsequently, the third accused caught hold of Adarsh and the first accused stabbed him also and he suffered serious injuries. Thereafter, the accused attacked the other two friends of the de facto complainant and they suffered injuries. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Sasthamangalam Ajith Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.K.Suresh the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. A reading of the remand report would substantiate that the first accused had also suffered serious injuries in the alleged incident. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last nearly 5 months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, opposing the application. He has stated that the petitioners have inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased and four others without any provocation. The witnesses in the crime are all friends and neighbours of the accused. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, they committed murder of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries on the de facto complainant and his friends. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last nearly five months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid on 6.5.2024. The case is now pending committal proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada as CP No.52/2024. Furthermore, I do not find that the petitioners 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.

In State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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.

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 consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last nearly 5 months, the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has been laid and further that the petitioners do not have criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioners 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 petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each 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 third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.119/2024. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(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 them 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 passport, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioners shall not enter the territorial limits of the Malayinkeehzu Police Station until the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.119/2024, other than for reporting before the Investigating Officer.

(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 moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) 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].