Pratheesh Kumar 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 accused in Crime No.618/2024 of the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 30.04.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 28.4.2024, at around 17 hours, the accused had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, and thereafter, stabbed him on his left shoulder. It is only because the de facto complainant warded off the attack, he did not lose his life. However, he suffered serious injuries  in  the  incident.Thus,  the  accused  has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Jibu P Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 308 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of Annexure – A1 First Information Report would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC will not be attracted to the facts of the case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 44 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 opposed the application. She submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in three other crimes of Valiathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. She further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted to the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted that two crimes registered against the petitioner are of the year 2019 and 2009, one under the Police Act and one under the NDPS Act. The crime of the year 2022, is for allegedly committing the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The petitioner cannot be a labelled as a habitual offener as alleged by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he attempted to murder the de facto complainant by stabbing him on his shoulder. However, the de facto complainant warded off the attack, but suffered serious injuries on his left ribs. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 44 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 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 overall consideration of the facts, the 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 44 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm 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 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].