Vincent vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the sole accused in Crime No.690/2024 of the Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNS'). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 29.09.2024, at 20:20 hours, the accused had attempted to stab the first informant. However, since the first informant warded off the attack, the knife struck on his face and cut his upper lip. Then the accused kicked him to the ground, sat on his face and attempted to stab him on his chest. However, since the first informant pushed away the accused, he did not lose his life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.K.Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 118(1) and 110 of the BNS to see that the petitioner is arrested and incarcerated. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 29.09.2024 of the first informant issued by the Lourdes Hospital, Ernakulam, to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the first informant. She prayed that the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the first informant and attacked him with a knife, and he suffered an injury on his face. On an appreciation of the treatment records of the first informant referred to above, I find that the first informant had suffered an incised wound on the left side of the upper lip. However, he was found to be conscious and oriented. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”.

On an overall consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 50 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm 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 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 jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court 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 jurisdictional court.

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].