Roobin Lal 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.128/2024 of the Athirappilly Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 394(b), 506(i) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 26.05.2024, at around 8.15 hours, while the defacto complainant, who is the Beat Officer in the Konnakkuzhi Forest Station, was treating a wild boar which suffered an injury in an accident, the accused attempted to take photos of the wild boar. When, the defacto complainant attempted to restrain the accused from doing the said act, he uttered obscene words and caught hold of the defacto complainant’s neck and pushed him onto the ground, and restrained him from discharging his official duty. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner is a media person. The petitioner attempted to take a picture of an injured wild boar, which agitated the defacto complainant and he immediately attacked the petitioner and caused injury to him. In fact, Annexure-III FIR has been registered against the de facto complainant for causing hurt to the petitioner. It is as a retaliation to Annexure-III FIR that Annexure-II FIR has been registered against the petitioner. It is reliably learnt that the de facto complainant has been suspended by his department. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 10 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  opposed  the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to show that the petitioner had used force against the de facto complainant which is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that there is a case and a counter case in respect of the very same incident. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to take a picture of the wild boar, which was allegedly injured and there was an altercation between him and the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 10 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the 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.

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. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 10 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite 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 them 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 passports, 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].