Sivanantham Munusami 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.192/2024 of the Railway Police Station, Palakkad, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 10.05.2024, at around 05.00 hours, while the defacto complainant was travelling in a train from Yesvantpur to Kannur, when she went to the washroom and returned, her belongings worth Rs. 1.7/- lakh were stolen. The investigation has revealed that it was the accused who committed the above offence. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew., 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 levelled against him. There are no materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately made the petitioner an accused in the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 48 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, stating that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The CCTV footages and the witnesses have stated that it was the petitioner who committed the theft of the belongings of the defacto complainant. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the theft of the belongings of the defacto complainant, which were worth Rs. 1.7/- lakh. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 48 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

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. 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, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 48 days, that the investigation in the case is complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a native of the state of Tamil Nadu, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to the stringent conditions as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81].

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 filing of the final report. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on the third Saturday of every month between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the conclusion of trial in Crime No.192/2024;

(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) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session,Palakkad, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court;

(vi) The petitioner shall furnish his present as well as his permanent addresses and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vii) 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;

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below;

(viii) 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].