Vijith Raj B 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.57/2024 of the Kasargod Police Station, Kasargod, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 323, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 13.1.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 12.1.2024 at about 20.30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the injured by hitting him with an iron rod and soda bottle. The injured suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. In fact, the accused attempted to commit the murder of the injured. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.K.V Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, 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. There is a counter-case registered against the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is a history-sheeter. The de facto complainant has been detained under the provisions of the KAPPA Act. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.1.2024, which is sixty days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Moreover, the allegation that the petitioner is a history-sheeter is not correct because he has not been involved in any other crime. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner had inflicted serious injuries on the de facto complainant, who sustained a fracture on his skull and had to undergo a surgery. The petitioner is a history-sheeter. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.1.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that recovery has been effected.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the de facto complainant by hitting with an iron rod and soda bottle and caused grievous injuries to him.

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 a 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 consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.1.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically 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 Tuesday and 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) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kasargod, without previous permission of the jurisdictional Court.

(vi) 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 moved and entertained by 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].