Robin Reji vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), by the 1st accused in Crime No.274/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 19.02.2024, at around 9.30 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant and tried to attack a person named ‘Anson’. When the de-facto complainant, his wife, and the wife of Anson, attempted to prevent the attack, the first accused hit on the de-facto complainant’s face with a weapon and he suffered a nasal bone fracture and an injury on his cheek. The accused Nos.2 & 3 attacked and caused hurt to Anson, his wife, brother, and mother. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt. Stiya Sivan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The petitioner's earlier application was dismissed by Annexure A5 order on the ground that the investigation is in progress. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that it was the petitioner who inflicted grievous injuries on the injured. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be deciphered that it was the petitioner who allegedly inflicted the grievous injury on the injured with a weapon. The overt act alleged against the accused Nos.2 & 3 is that they caused hurt to the other persons who were in the house of the de-facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last forty days and investigation is complete.

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 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.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last forty 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 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].