Ramshad T.V vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in Crime No.13/2024 of the Kuthuparamba Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused (nine in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 365, 506 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 1.1.2024 at around 22.01 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of gold ornaments that were brought by the mother of the de facto complainant. In fact, the accused had abducted the de facto complainant in a car bearing registration No.KL-58/AG 5547 and took him to Cochin International Airport. When the mother of the de facto complainant arrived at the airport from abroad, the accused abducted her also and took both of them to a lodge in Koothuparamba and then committed the robbery. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt. Nikita J.Mendez, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.S Hrithwik and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutors and Sri.Jerry Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 2 and 3/de facto complainants.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The accused 4 and 5 were arrested on 5.1.2024, the ninth accused was arrested on 7.1.2024, sixth accused was arrested on 9.1.2024 and seventh accused was arrested on 12.1.2024. Practically, the petitioners are in judicial custody for nearly 60 days. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the subject-matter in dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant has been settled out of Court and the petitioners have filed Crl.M.C No.1011/2024 before this Court to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it. The said case stands posted to 12.3.2024 for disposal. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in the further detention of the petitioners. Hence, the applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They contended that the petitioners have committed a heinous offence of abducting the de facto complainant and his mother and then committing robbery of their belongings. They submitted that the accused 5, 6, 7 and 9 have criminal antecedents. They are involved in cases of similar nature. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. Nonetheless, they conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/ de facto complainant and his mother submitted that the dispute between them and the accused have been settled out of Court. The respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. They have sworn affidavits before this Court in Crl.M.C No.1011/2024, stating that they have no objection in the proceedings being quashed. Hence, the respondents 2 and 3 have no objection in the petitioners being enlarged on bail.

The prosecution allegation is that the accused had abducted the de facto complainant and his mother and taken them to a place in Koothuparamba and allegedly robbed the gold that was brought by the de facto complainant’s mother from abroad. But the fact remains that the accused have been in judicial custody for nearly 60 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Now, it is not submitted that the de facto complainant has settled the dispute with the petitioners. 8. 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 a 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. 10. Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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. 11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that petitioners have been in judicial custody for nearly 60 days, that the dispute between the parties have been settled, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the alleged antecedents of some of the petitioners, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kannur, without obtaining permission from 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].