Kerala High Court
Manu Das 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. 3278 OF 2024
CRIME NO.423/2024 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2491 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
MANU DAS
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O DEVADAS, ADI-ABHIYIL HOUSE ( KRISHNA BHAVAN),
KUNNATHUR PADINJATTE MURI, KUNNATHUR P.O., KUNNATHUR
VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540
BY ADV AJAYA KUMAR. G
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SASTHAMKOTTAH POLICE STATION, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM,
PIN - 690521
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3278 of 2024
2
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
ORDER
This is the second application filed under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first
accused in Crime No.423/2024 of Sasthamcotta Police
Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in
number) for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326,
427, 506(i) & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on
17.03.2024.
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on
12.03.2024 at around 12.30 hours, the accused 1 to 3,
out of their previous animosity and in furtherance of
their common intention, wrongfully restrained the
defacto complainant and his friend named Rahul, and the
1 st accused stabbed the defacto complainant on his
chest with a knife, who suffered a deep injury on the left
side of his chest and a fracture on his ribs. Thereafter,
when one of the friends of the defacto complainant
named Krishnadas attempted to prevent the 1st accused
from committing further assault on the defacto
complainant, but the 1st accused stabbed him also. The
2nd accused vandalized the autorikshaw of the defacto
complainant and caused a loss of Rs.75,000/-. The 3rd
accused uttered obscene words at the defacto
complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Ajaya Kumar G., the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema.T.V. the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the
accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely
implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has
deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC to deny
bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is a law abiding
citizen and he has no criminal antecedents. In any given
case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since
17.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically
complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the
petitioner may be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the application. She contended that the 1st
accused had brutally assaulted the defacto complainant
and had inflicted a stab injury on him with a knife and he
suffered a grievous injury including a fracture of his ribs.
The 1st accused also stabbed the friend of the defacto
complainant named Krishnadas, who also suffered a
grievous injury. She made available the accident register
cum wound certificate dated 12.03.2024 of the injured to
substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the defacto
complainant and his friend. She submitted that the
investigation in the case is in progress. If the 1st accused
is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and
tamper with the evidence. Hence, she prayed that the
application may be dismissed.
6. On an analysis of the materials on record, it can
be seen that it was the 1st accused, who inflicted
grievous injuries both on the defacto complainant and his
friend - the injured. The fact remains that the petitioner
has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days. The
petitioner's earlier application for bail was dismissed by
this Court by Annexure A3 order, principally on the
ground that the investigation was only at its preliminary
stage.
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. After 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 considering the
fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for
the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is
practically complete, recovery has been effected and the
petitioner does not have 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
