Kerala High Court
Vijesh@Unni vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4050 OF 2024
CRIME NO.281/2024 OF ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.3176 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 2 & 3:
1 VIJESH@UNNI,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O SACHI, KIDANGIL VEEDU, NEAR MEERANKADAVU,
ANCHUTHENGU DESOM, ANCHUTHENGU VILLAGE, FROM VAYALIL
PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR KOCHUTHITTA TEMPLE, KADAKKAVOOR
DESOM, HIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695307
2 SANIL @ LALAPPAN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SASI, THOPPICHANTHA POORAM NIVAS, PEUMKULAM
DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE FROM KIZHAKKUMPURAM
VEEDU, NEAR THEVARNADA, KADAKKAVOOR DESOM,
KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695102
BY ADVS.
RAJITHA V.K
P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR.PP SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4065/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4065 OF 2024
CRIME NO.281/2024 OF ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.3157 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SANAL @ PONNU ,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SACHI, KIDANGIL VEEDU,NEAR MEERAN KADAVU
ANCHUTHENGU DESOM AND VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
RAJITHA V.K
P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR.PP. SMT. NEEMA T.V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..4050/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
3
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
COMMON ORDER
The applications are filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3
in Crime No.281/2024 of the Anchuthengu Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 452 and 307 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners
were arrested on 5.5.2024. B.A No.4065/2024 is filed by
the first accused and B.A. No.4050/2024 is filed by the
accused 2 and 3. As the applications arise out of the
same crime, they were consolidated, jointly heard and
disposed of by this common order.
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
4.5.2024, at around 1.30 hours, the accused, in
prosecution of their common intention, formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally
trespassed into the de facto complainant's relative's
house. Then, the second accused hit a person named
Vichu, the relative of the de facto complainant, on his
rear side and left hand and inflicted injuries on him. At
the same time, the first accused attempted to cut on the
neck of the de facto complainant with a chopper, but
since he warded off the attack, he suffered an jury on his
hand. The first accused also cut the son of the de facto
complainant with a machete on his right hand and left
palm. The accused 1 to 5 chased the injured from the
house and when one of the injured fell down on the road,
the second accused hit him on his right hand with a
machete and again caused injury to him. Thus, the
accused have committed the above offences.
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
3. Heard; Sri.P.Anoop, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners Sri.C.S. Hrithwik and Smt.
Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutors.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally
innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They
have been falsely implicated in the crime. There are no
incriminating materials to substantiate that the
petitioner have committed the offences under Sections
326 and 307 of IPC. The Investigating Officer has
deliberately incorporated the said offences to deny bail
to the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners
have been in judicial custody for the last one month, the
investigation in the case is practically complete and
recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may
be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutors seriously
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has
filed a bail objection report, inter alia, opposing the
application. The Investigating Officer has contended that
there are specific overt acts alleged against the
petitioners. In fact, the first accused is a history sheeter,
since he is involved in 10 crimes of the very same police
station and 2 crimes of the Kadakavoor Police Station,
for committing similar offences under the IPC. If the
first petitioner is released on bail, he would be a menace
to the society. Likewise, there is a specific overt act
alleged against the second accused also, because he used
a machete and inflicted injuries on the injured. He made
available the accident register cum wound certificate of
the injured to establish the nature of injuries suffered by
the injured. He submitted that the applications may be
dismissed.
6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
can be gathered that the specific overt act is alleged
against the accused 1 and 2, of which the first accused
inflicted cut injury on the injured with a machete and the
injured suffered injuries as reflected from the Accident
Register cum wound certificate of the Taluk Head
Quarters Hospital, Chirayinkeezhu dated 4.5.2024, which
actually corresponds to the nature of accusations levelled
against the first accused. However, that is a matter to be
investigated and decided at the time of trial. It is also on
record that the first accused is an accused in 12 other
crimes spanning from 2015 to 2021 of the Anchuthengu
Police Station as well as Kadakavoor Police Station.
7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials
placed on record, especially on comprehending the
nature, seriousness and the gravity of the accusations
levelled against the first accused, and that he is a person
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
with criminal antecedents, and further that specific overt
acts are alleged against him, I am of the view that the
first accused is not entitled to be released on bail.
However, considering the fact that the accused 2 and 3
have been in judicial custody for the last one month, and
they have no criminal antecedents and further that there
are no specific overt acts alleged against them so as to
attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, I am of
the view that the accused 2 and 3 can be enlarged on
bail.
8. 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
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
former conduct.
9. 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.
10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials
placed on record, and the findings already rendered
above, I am of the view that the application filed by the
first accused is to be dismissed and the application filed
by the accused 2 and 3 is to be allowed.
In the result;
(a) B.A No.4065/2024 filed by the first accused is
dismissed.
(b) B.A No.4050/2024 filed by the accused 2 and 3
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
is allowed by directing the petitioners to be released on
bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m.
and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also
appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(ii) The petitioners 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
them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any
Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence
while they are on bail;
(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports,
if any, before the court below at the time of execution of
the bond. If they have no passport, they 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
B.A. Nos.4050 & 4065 of 2024
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 petitioners even while
the petitioners are 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/-
rmm5/6/2024 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
