Sharath Kumar 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.241/2024 of the Badiadka Police Station, Kasargod, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 279, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner was arrested on 3.5.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 3.5.2024, at around 22.00 hours, while the de facto complainant was performing his official duty, the accused was found driving his auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.Ka 70/2375 in a rash and negligent manner. He was also intoxicated. While the de facto complainant attempted to intercept the vehicle, the accused used force and caused bodily injuries to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt.Ummul Fida, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime due to the previous animosity of the de facto complainant towards him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offences under Secs.332 and 353 will not be attracted, which are non-bailable offences. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 19 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him hampering the investigation. Hence, the application is dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that on 3.5.2024, he refused to stop his vehicle while it was intercepted by the de facto complainant. Thereafter, he used force and caused bodily injuries to the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 19 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and 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 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 a 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 materials placed on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 3.5.2024, that 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 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].