Jithin.P 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.301/2024 of the Mulavukadu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 04.05.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 03.05.2024, at around 13 hrs., the accused, on getting infuriated on finding his wife wearing a sindhoor, kicked her down, uttered obscene words and attempted to strangulate her with a pillow. When she tried to escape, the accused stabbed her with a fish cutting scissors and caused grievous injuries on her body. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.S.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 308 to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence by stabbing his wife on different parts of her body and she suffered grievous injuries. He submitted that the petitioner is an inveterate offender since he is involved in five other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refuted the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor. He stated that out of the five crimes, four crimes were registered against him under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is for drunken driving. The other crime is of the year 2014 and the petitioner has been acquitted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be branded as a habitual offender.

The allegation against the petitioner is that; he assaulted his wife and caused grievous injuries to her. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is 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 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, which is the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the application is to be allowed. 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 filed and entertained before 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].