Kerala High Court
Sudharshanan 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. 3340 OF 2024
CRIME NO.337/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.1943 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUDHARSHANAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRAN.A.K, KUNNATHU HOUSE, KANNAMBRA-II
VILLAGE, MANJAPRA.P.O, URUNIPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678685
BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
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.3340 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 accused in
Crime No.337/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police
Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506 (ii) and 308 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on
22.03.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on
20.3.2024, at around 7.10 hours, the accused out of his
previous animosity towards the de facto complainant,
wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and hit
him with an hammer on his right knee joint and assaulted
him on the different parts of his body. The de facto
complainant suffered a fracture on his right knee joint.
When the wife and daughter of the de facto complainant
attempted to intervene in the matter, the accused
assaulted them also. It is only because the wife and
daughter of the de facto complainant intervened in the
matter, the de facto complainant did not loose his life.
Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V.A. Johnson, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V. 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
Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated
Sections 326 and 308 of IPC to deny bail to the
petitioner. A reading of First Information Report would
substantiate that the above offences will not be attracted
to the facts of the case. At any rate, the petitioner has
been in judicial custody since 22.3.2024, the
investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been
effected and the petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. She submitted that investigation is in
progress. She further stated that if the petitioner is
released on bail, he would sabotage the investigation.
Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner
is that, due to his previous animosity towards the de
facto complainant, he assaulted the de facto complainant
with a hammer and caused a fracture to his knee joint. It
is also alleged that the petitioner assaulted the wife and
daughter of the de facto complainant. The fact remains
that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the
last 30 days, the investigation in the case is 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 overall consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the
materials placed on record, especially on
comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in
judicial custody for the last 30 days, the investigation in
the case is complete, that recovery has been effected
and the petitioner has no 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
