Mruthul P @Appu 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.236/2024 of the Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 9.05.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 4.05.2024, at around 20.15 hours, the accused beat the father of the de facto complainant on his face with an iron stool and caused injuries to his tooth and fractured his jaw. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri.V A Vinod, 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 levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the offence under Sec.326 is attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is 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 Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has criminal antecedents since he is involved in ten other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the submission that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He drew the attention of this Court through the ten crimes that are reported in the bail objection report to substantiate the fact that most of the offences are minor in nature. The first offence is of the year 2012 and last offence is of the year 2024. He submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the crimes. There is no heinous offence so as to rank the petitioner as a habitual offender. Hence, he prayed that the application may be allowed.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioner is alleged to have hit the father of the de facto complainant with an iron stool and he suffered a fracture on his jaw. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected.

It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person.

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. 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 one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite 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.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 passports, 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].