Shobish 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.42/2024 of the Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 20.1.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 19.1.2024 at around 19.00 hours, the accused out of his previous animosity towards the injured persons named, Jisha and Paulose and with an intention to murder them, stabbed them on their abdomen and voluntarily caused hurt to them. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard;  Sri.Nirmal  V.Nair,  the 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. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 20.1.2024, which is 54 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected . Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, stating that the investigation is in progress. The learned Pubic Prosecutor made available the discharge certificates of the two injured to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by them. He submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would sabotage the investigation and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 19.1.2024, the accused out of his previous animosity with the injured stabbed them with a knife on different parts of their body, which stands corroborated by the discharge certificate produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 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.

Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.1.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the 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.

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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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].