Khalil Rahman 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.201/2024 of the Vagamon Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 16.04.2024, at around 19.00 hours, the accused with an intention to murder the defacto complainant's husband, uttered obscene words at him and then inflicted a cut injury on his forehead with an axe and he suffered serious head injuries, including a fracture of his skull. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath, 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. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid on 10.07.2024. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. She also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution case is that, on 16.04.2024, the petitioner uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant and thereafter inflicted a cut injury on the head of the defacto complainant, and he suffered a skull fracture. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 43 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid on 10.07.2024. Furthermore, the petitioner does not 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 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.

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. 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 analysis of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 43 days, the investigation in the case is complete, final report has been laid and further that 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. Application 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].