Sahanadan vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.VC-11/2022 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

The prosecution case is that on 12.11.2022 at about 1.45 p.m, the petitioner was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad while receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from Mr. Bhaskaran V.K. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since then.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is further submitted that the investigation is almost in the final stage.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

The materials placed before the Court would reveal that the investigation is almost in the final stage.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. {Vide: Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]}.

The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law” {Vide: Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State [(1978) 1 SCC 240]}.

In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty {Vide: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]}.

Having regard to the stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.