Rinu K Ravi vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( ‘the BNSS’ for short) 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 707/2024 of the Kundara Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1.8.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 26.4.2024, at around 19:40 hours, the accused had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and stabbed him with a knife. It is only because the de facto complainant warded off the attack, he did not lose his life. However, he suffered grievous injuries on the left side of his abdomen. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Nalinakshan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. Even going by the accident register cum wound certificate produced by the prosecution, it can be seen that the injured has only suffered minor injuries and he was not treated as an inpatient. This shows that the Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.307 of IPC to harass and vex the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last 57 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in another crime of the year 2022. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and stabbed him on his abdomen. Prima facie the said accusation seems to be probable in view of the treatment records produced by the prosecution. However, that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided after trial. The fact remains that, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 57 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected.

Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate  of  Enforcement [2024  INSC  595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:

“21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 57 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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) 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].