Kerala High Court
Anoop vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
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. 3303 OF 2024
CRIME NO.617/2024 OF CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.617 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANOOP
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,
RESIDINGV@ ANUVILLA, EDAMALA MURI, MULAVANA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691 503.
BY ADV R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHAVARA THEKKUM BHAGOM POLICE STATION,
CHAVARA KOLLAM, PIN - 691 319.
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:
B.A. No.3303 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 first accused in
Crime No.225/2024 of the Chavara Thekkumbhagam
Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused
for allegedly committing the offences under Sections
294(b), 323, 324, 326, 333 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on
11.03.2024.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is
that; a person named Sajeev Antony had lodged a
complaint with the Thekkumbhagam Police Station,
alleging that the first accused was in a relationship with
his wife and was attempting to abduct her. Consequent
to the complaint, the police party reached the house of
Sajeev Antony. Then, the first accused on seeing the
police party hurled abuses at them and hit the de facto
complainant on his face with a key and he suffered a
fracture to his tooth. The accused 2 and 3 also
manhandled the de facto complainant. The accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, deterred the
police from discharging their official duty. Thus, the
accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. R.Kishore, 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. The
police has deliberately incorporated Sections 326 and
333 of IPC, to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of
Annexure -A1 FIR would substantiate that the above
offences will not be attracted. In any given case, the
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40
days, the investigation in the case is practically complete
and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the
petitioner may be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. He submitted that investigation is in
progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is released
on bail, there is a likelihood of him sabotaging the
investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the
application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner
is that, he hit the de facto complainant on his face,
which resulted in a fracture of his tooth. It is also
alleged that he along with the accused 2 and 3 deterred
the police from discharging their official duty. The fact
remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody
for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is
practically complete and recovery has been effected.
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], 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
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 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 40 days, the investigation in the case is
practically complete, recovery has been effected and that
the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, 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 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) 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].
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/23/4/2024
