Hareesh Mulloli vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No. 270/2024 of the Malur Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 506(ii), and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.06.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 02.06.2024, at around 17.30 hours, the accused, out of his previous animosity towards the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained him, caught hold of his neck, and stabbed him with a knife, and the defacto complainant suffered grievous injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offenses.

Heard; Sri. Reshma E., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the the Indian Penal Code, to see that the petitioner is incarcerated. The petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, and the investigation in this case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He made available the treatment records of the defacto complainant to substantiate that he had suffered a stab injury over his left chest, he was hospitalised and treated at the District Hospital, Kannur. He stated that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, out of his previous animosity towards defacto complainant, stabbed him with a knife on his chest and inflicted serious injuries on him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the 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 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 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.

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 40 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 firm 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].