Jeneesh Raju vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by accused No.1 and 3 in Crime No.382/2024 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused ( seven in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 324, 307, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 20.03.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 19.03.2024, at around 6.45 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attempted to murder the first informant. They brutally assaulted the first informant and caused grievous injuries with a surgical blade. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. K.R. Arun Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S. the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would show that the offence under Section 307 will not be attracted. In fact, in connection with the same incident, the petitioners were also injured, and Annexure A1 FIR was registered by the very same police station. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 68 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to show the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On appreciation of materials placed on record, it can be gathered that the Annexure A2 FIR was registered at the first instance on 20.03.2024, at around 03.13 hours. Subsequently, Annexure A1 was registered at the instance of the petitioners as against the defacto complainant and his friends on 20.03.2024, at around 18.39 hours. Therefore, there is a case and a countercase in connection with the said incident. The prosecution allegation is that the accused had hurt the defacto complainant with a surgical blade. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 68 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, there is no material to show 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.

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 anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 68 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on him 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  Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(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 him 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 passports, they shall file affidavits 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 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].