Kerala High Court
Deva Harshan vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 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
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
CRIME NO.565/2024 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2024 IN CRMP NO.6088
OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/S:
DEVA HARSHAN
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. SURESHKUMAR, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOLATHUR
DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN -
680684
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
SR.PP.SRMT.SEETHA S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS,J
--------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.6152 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short,
'BNSS'), by the 5th accused in Crime No.565/2024 of the
Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered
against the accused for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324,
294(b), 506 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2024.
2. The concise case of the prosecution is that: on
30.06.2024, at around 19:00 hours, the accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, had formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly, and the 1 st accused
inflicted a cut injury on the defacto complainant with a
sword, the 2nd accused inflicted an injury on his head with
a chopper and the 3rd accused hit him on his left eye using
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
a knuckle duster, and the other accused assisted the
accused 1 to 3 to commit the above offences. The other
accused also fisted the defacto complainant with their
hands. Thus, the accused have committed the above
offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled
against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime.
There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has
committed the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. A
reading of Annexure-1 First Information Report would
substantiate that the specific overt act is alleged against
the accused 1 to 3, who have inflicted grievous injuries on
the defacto complainant. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he assisted the accused 1 to 3 to commit
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
the above offences. The petitioner has been in judicial
custody for the last 30 days, the investigation in the case,
so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically
complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore,
the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed
the application. She submitted that the petitioner along
with the other accused had brutally assaulted the defacto
complainant. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is
every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and
tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless, she did not
dispute the fact that the overt act alleged against the
petitioner is that he assisted the accused 1 to 3 in
committing the above offences. The 1st accused is a person
with 46 criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may
be dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
6. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that
he along with the other accused assisted the accused 1 to 3
to inflict grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. The
fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody for the last 30 days, the investigation in the case,
so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically
complete and recovery has been effected. I also find that
the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
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 a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
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. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an
exception, which is the touch stone of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied
merely due to the sentiments of the society.
10. 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 30 days,
the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has
been effected and that the petitioner does not have any
criminal antecedents, I hold that the petitioner is entitled
to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the
bail application.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
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. Application 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/02.08.24
BAIL APPL. NO. 6152 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6152/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 565/2024 OF KODAKARA
POLICE STATION DATED 01.07.2024
Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA IN CRL.M.P. NO. 6088/2024
DATED 08.07.2024
