Athul Babu vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 2nd accused in Crime No.170/2024 of the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (five in number, out of whom one is a minor) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 28.01.2024, at around 00.15 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention and out of their previous animosity towards one Akhil (deceased), formed themselves an unlawful assembly and the 1st accused indiscriminately stabbed the deceased with a knife and caused fatal injuries to him. The deceased lost his life on 30.01.2024 at the Kollam Medicity Hospital. The other accused aided the 1st accused to commit the above offences. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.C.R.Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner because it was the 1st accused who inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.01.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the accused, had conspired, and in prosecution of their common intention the 1st accused murdered the deceased. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in Crime No.119/2024 of the very same Police Station. It is after the present crime, that the next crime was committed. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On a scrutiny of Annexure A1 FIR and the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt act regarding committing the murder of the deceased is alleged against the 1st accused. The overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he assisted the 1st accused to commit the murder. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.01.2024, the investigation in the case is almost complete and recovery has been effected.

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 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.

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.

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the fact that it was the 1st accused who allegedly committed the murder of the deceased, the specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he aided the 1st  accused to commit the above offence of murder, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kollam, without previous permission of the jurisdictional court.

(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 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].