Sarun Sali vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.710/2024 of the

Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 394, 294(b)

and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 16.04.2024.

The concise case of the prosecution is that; on 13.04.2024, at around 20 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the

defacto complainant by slapping him on his cheek and head, and then hitting him with a bottle and intimidating him with a scissors that they would do

away with his life. Thereafter, they took away his mobile phone worth Rs.1,25,000/- and his watch worth Rs.5000/-, and then made him to transfer

Rs.35,500/- through google pay to the account of the accused. Subsequently, they also telephoned the friend of the de facto complainant and

demanded a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/-, if not, they would post the morphed pictures of the de facto complainant on the social media. Thus, the accused

have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Akash Cherian Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely

implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 394 of the IPC without any cogent material. In any given case,

the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 78 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report

has been laid on 22.4.2024. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other

crimes of the years 2013, 2019 and 2022. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the

application may be dismissed.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, he along with other accused had intimidated the de facto complainant, robbed his mobile phone, money

and also demanded a ransom, for not posting his morphed pictures on the social media. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody

for the last 78 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid.

It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an

antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person.

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 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. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of

the society.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering

the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 78 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and

the final report has been laid, I am of the firm 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 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].