Reny vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 23203 Ker

Kerala High Court

Reny 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. 5782 OF 2024
  CRIME NO.1055/2024 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2024 IN CMP NO.1793
OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I (FOREST
OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:

         RENY,
         AGED 28 YEARS
         S/O ROY, PURAKKATTIL HOUSE, MUTHALIYARMADOM
         POST,KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, KARIKKODU VI[IAGE,
         THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685585
         BY ADV A.V.JAMES


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2    SHIJASMON P.S,
         PEZHUMKATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEYATTAM BHAGAM,
         THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA. IDUKKI DIST, PIN -
         685585
OTHER PRESENT:

         SR PP SMT SEETHA S


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl. No.5782 of 2024
                               :2:



                             ORDER

Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (in short 'BNSS')

by the sole accused in Crime No.1055 of 2024 of the

Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki, which is registered

against him for allegedly committing the offences

punishable under Sections 384, 419 and 506 (i) of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The petitioner

was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

26.06.2024.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that, on

22.06.2024, at around 11:00 hours, the accused entered

the shop of the defacto complainant and received

Rs.300/- impersonating himself as a Police Officer. Two

days later, the accused again forcefully entered the shop

of the defacto complainant and took away Rs.500/-.

Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri. A.V. James, the learned counsel 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 levelled against him. The Investigating

Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 384 of IPC

to see that the petitioner is denied bail. There is no

material to substantiate that the petitioner has

committed the above offences. The petitioner has been

in judicial custody for the last 33 days, the investigation

in the case is complete and recovery has been effected.

Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is

unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application. She submitted that petitioner had

impersonated himself as a Police Officer and took away

money from the defacto complainant. The petitioner is a

habitual offender, since he is involved in three other

crimes of the Vazhakkulam and Thodupuzha Police

Stations. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is

every likelihood of him committing similar offences.

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that, the

petitioner impersonated himself as a Police Officer and

took away Rs.800/- from the defacto complainant. On a

perusal of the petitioner's antecedents, it is seen that

one of the crimes is registered against him for

committing the offence under Section 279 of the IPC.

The other two cases are of the year, 2022. The fact

remains that, the petitioner has been in judicial custody

for the last 33 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 a 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. 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 anxious consideration of the facts, the

rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials

placed on record, particularly taking into consideration

the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody

for the last 33 days, the investigation in the case is

practically complete and recovery has been effected, I

am of the firm 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. 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

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5782/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

                   1055/2024     DATED     26.06..2024    OF
                   THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2        THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1055/2024

DATED 26.06.2024 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE. Annexure A3 THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2017 OF RAJAGIRI HOSPITAL Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.

1793 /2024 DATED 02.07.2024 OF JFCM-1, THODUPUZHA