Rajan 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.186/2024 of the Vandiperiyar

Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 & 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860(‘IPC’, for short). The petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 09.03.2024, at around 02.00 hours, the accused out of his previous animosity towards the de-facto

complainant and his brother, named Jithu (deceased), uttered obscene words at them and then stabbed the deceased on his thigh with a sharp weapon,

which resulted in his death. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. S.K. Adhithyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.K. Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. There is no material to

substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the

said offence to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly 115 days, the investigation in

the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and the final report has been laid on 07.06.2024. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any

criminal antecedents. Hence, the applications may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter-alia, contending

that there are incriminating materials to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner had confessed regarding his complicity, and

the weapon was recovered. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing an offence of a similar nature and also

intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 09.03.2024, he committed the murder of the deceased by stabbing him with a sharp-edged weapon.

The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 115 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has

been laid, and the case is now pending committal before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Indisputably, 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 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.

In State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite

periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, 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 overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and especially on

considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 115 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report

has been laid, and furthermore, 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, 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 third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in

Crime No.186/2024. 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) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial limits of the Police Station where the witnesses are residing, other than for the purpose of reporting

before the Investigating Officer, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court.

(vi) 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.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) 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].