Kerala High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
CRIME NO.767/2018 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONER:
RAMESH KUMAR,
AGED 38 YEARS
KANNAPARAMBU, VALAPPAD, NATTIKA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680567
BY ADVS.
SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
ARCHANA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
sr pp smt seetha s
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
2
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1 st
accused in Crime No.767/2018 of Palakkad Town
South Police Station, registered against him, for
allegedly committing the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 307 read
with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,
'IPC').
2. The gravamen of the application is that: the
petitioner was enlarged on default bail on
15.09.2018 as per the order in Crl.M.P
No.6798/2018 passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - III, Palakkad, inter alia, on the
condition that the petitioner shall not commit any
offence while he is on bail. However, the petitioner
was arraigned as an accused in Crime
Nos.2174/2021 and 2175/2021 of the Thrissur
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
Town East Police Station, for committing similar
offences. Immediately, the Station House Officer,
Town South Police Station, Palakkad filed
Crl.M.P.No.118/2022, to cancel the bail granted to
the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, by order
dated 06.07.2022, cancelled the order of bail and
the petitioner was re-arrested on the very same
day. The petitioner challenged the order before
this Court by filing Crl.M.C No. 5819/2022. By
Annexure-A1 order, this Court dismissed the
application and confirmed the order of the learned
Magistrate. However, this Court observed that the
order cancelling bail to the petitioner will not
preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh
application before the Trial Court, in the event of
change of circumstances. In the meantime, the
investigation was completed and the final report
was laid, and the case was committed to the III
Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, and
numbered as S.C No.865/2019. Immediately, the
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.5468/2024 under
Section 439 of the Code before the Trial Court.
But, the learned Sessions Judge, by Annexure-A2
order, dismissed the application holding that there
was no change of circumstance to release the
petitioner on bail and there was every likelihood of
him committing a similar offence if he is released
on bail. It is assailing the said order and seeking
an order of bail, the instant application is filed.
3. Heard Sri.Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha
S., the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has been re-arrested
on 06.07.2022, which is nearly two years. The long
period of incarceration itself is a change of
circumstance. The petitioner's fundamental right
to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stands infringed. He relied on
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another [2022 (4) KHC 570]
to canvas the position that the bail is the rule and
jail is the exception. He submitted that the
petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family,
and the family is in dire-straits. Moreover, the trial
in the case is not likely to commence immediately.
So, therefore, the petitioner will have to be in
indefinite incarceration. The petitioner is willing to
abide by any stringent condition that may be
imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may
be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the application. She contended that the
petitioner has consciously flouted the specific
condition imposed by the learned Magistrate by
committing similar offences in two crimes. It was
considering the petitioner's post bail conduct that
the learned Magistrate had rightly cancelled the
bail. Even though the petitioner challenged the
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
order before this Court, his application was
dismissed by Annexure-A1 order. Hanging on to
an observation made by this Court, the petitioner
filed a fresh application before the Trial Court,
which was also dismissed by Annexure-A2 order,
on the specific finding that the petitioner had
misused his liberty by getting involved in two
other crimes. As the petitioner has no respect for
the rule of law and does not keep up to his
undertaking, if he is released on bail he is certain
to commit similar offences. She also contented
that the present application is not maintainable
because the petitioner cannot challenge Annexure-
A2 in a fresh application under Section 439 of the
Code instead will have to challenge it
independently. She prayed that the application
may be dismissed.
6. When the Bail Application came up for
consideration on 31.01.2024, this Court had called
for a report from the Court of Session, Palakkad,
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
to ascertain the status and reasonable time period
required to dispose of SC No.865/2019.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, by
communication dated 01.02.2024, has informed
this Court that the charge has been framed in
S.C.No.865/2019 and the case was scheduled for
trial. However, as the FSL report has not been
received, the case was adjourned to 09.02.2024.
The Trial Court requires at least six months time
to dispose of SC No.865/2019.
8. On a scrutiny of the materials placed on
record, it is evident that the petitioner has
indisputably got involved in two other crimes,
subsequent to his release on bail in Crime
No.767/2018, for allegedly committing similar
offences. Therefore, the petitioner has misused the
liberty that was granted to him by the learned
Magistrate.
9. In P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
another [2022 KHC 6496), a three Judge Bench
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
of the Honourable Supreme Court has
categorically laid down the parameters under
which a bail order can be cancelled. It is, inter
alia, held that, if an accused misuses his liberty by
indulging in similar/other criminal activity,
certainly the bail can be cancelled. The above view
has been reiterated in a plethora of judgments by
the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court.
10. The fact remains that the petitioner had
violated the specific condition in the bail order
that he shall not get involved in any subsequent
crime. Even though the petitioner challenged the
order before this Court, by Annexure A1 order this
Court upheld the order cancelling the bail.
Nevertheless, the petitioner on the strength of a
passing observation made by this Court filed a
similar application before the Trial Court, which
has also been dismissed by Annexure A2 order,
holding that there is no change of circumstances.
Immediately, thereafter, the present application is
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
filed. There is nothing on record to prove that
there is any change of circumstance.
11. In view of the petitioner's above
background and on comprehending his post bail
conduct, in flouting his undertaking, the present
plea put forth by the petitioner does not inspire
the confidence of this Court. Going by the
petitioner's antecedents, there is every likelihood
of him flouting the liberty, if granted to him, by
treating his bail bond as a mere paper undertaking
without any respect for the rule of law. An
undertaking made before the Court is sacrosanct.
12. In the above conspectus, I am of the
definite view that the petitioner does not deserve
to be shown any leniency or mercy. Hence, I am
not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers
of this Court and facilitate another crime to be
committed, and again go through the present
exercise all over again. The precious judicial time
is not meant to be wasted. Furthermore, if such a
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
liberal approach is adopted, it would sent a wrong
message to the society, that bail conditions can
easily be breached with impunity.
13. On an comprehensive consideration of the
matter, I hold that the bail application is
meritless. Nonetheless, taking into account that
the petitioner is an under trial prisoner and
keeping in mind the constitutional mandate of
speedy justice, I am of the view that the Trial
Court can be directed to consider and dispose of
SC No.865/2019 in accordance with law, in
precedence to older pending matters.
In the result,
(i) the bail application is dismissed;
(ii) In exercise of the supervisory powers of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, I direct the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Palakkad to pass orders to obtain the FSL
report in Crime No.767/2018 urgently, and dispose
of SC No.865/2019, in accordance with law and as
BAIL APPL. NO. 652 OF 2024
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
lsn
