Kerala High Court
Jijo Saju vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024
CRIME NO.947/2023 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.555 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
JIJO SAJU
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. AUGUSTHY SAJU, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 686692
BY ADVS.
BALAMURALI K.P.
HARIPRIYA.M
SREEJITH.M.R
KRISHNAA GOKUL T.S.
ATHEESHA M.V.
SHAJI T.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024
2
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 14 th accused in Crime No.947/2023 of the Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 201, 341, 324, 395, 397, 465, 471, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2024.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case, is that; on 13.12.2023, at around 8 hours, while the de facto complainant was travelling in a car after purchasing gold, and when he reached Thamarassery, the accused in prosecution of their common intention and after hatching a conspiracy, came in two cars and intercepted the vehicle of the de facto complainant. They pulled him from the car and beat him with iron rods and robbed Rs.68,00,000/-which was kept in the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 3
3. Heard; Sri. Balamurali K.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing 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 no material to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the case. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated all non- bailable offences only to deny bail to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner along with other accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 201, 341, 324, 395, 397, 465, BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 4 471, 120B and 109 of the IPC. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 5 the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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.
10. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 6 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.
12. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 7 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 filed. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 8 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].
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/23.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 3163 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3163/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.947/2023 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE Annexure 2 ORDER DATED 04-04-2024 IN CRMC 555/2024 ON DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BAIL ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT GRANTING BAIL TO THE 7TH ACCUSED DATED 18/03/2024 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.1813/2024