Kerala High Court
Rahuldas vs State Of Kerala on 7 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
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4640 OF 2024
CRIME NO.222/2024 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
SAJITH
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY, KAITHAKULAM, KUNDALASSERI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679532
BY ADV V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679513
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4229/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4229 OF 2024
CRIME NO.222/2024 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.6148 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:
RAHULDAS,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.RAMADAS, MURICHIRA HOUSE,
KANJIRAMPARA,SREEKRISHNAPURAM , PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 679513
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679513
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.4640/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
3
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2024
COMMON ORDER
The applications are filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 5 and
8 in Crime No.222/2024 of the Sreekrishnapuram Police
Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused ( 9 in
number) for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323,
324, 325 and 364 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. The petitioners were arrested on 11.5.2024. B.A
No.4640/2024 is filed by the 5th accused and B.A.
No.4229/2024 is filed by the 8th accused. As the
applications arise out of the same crime, they were
consolidated, jointly heard and disposed of by this
common order.
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on
11.5.2024, at around 13 hours, the accused, in
prosecution of their common intention, formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common
object of assaulting the de facto complainant, criminally
trespassed into the house of one Mubashir, the friend of
the de facto complainant and took the de facto
complainant in an autorickshaw to a lonely place and
then they attacked him with swords and sticks and they
also attacked Mubashir and he suffered dislocation of his
tooth. The de facto complainant and his friend suffered
serious injuries in the incident. Thus, the accused have
committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V.A Vinod and Sri.M.Sasindran, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally
innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A
reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the
offence under Section 364 of the IPC cannot be
attributed against the petitioners. The specific overt act
is only alleged against the first accused, who abducted
the victims and caused injuries to them. In any given
case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since
11.5.2024, the investigation in the case is practically
complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore,
the petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. Hence,
the applications may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
applications. He submitted that the investigation in the
case is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioners
are released on bail, they would tamper with evidence
and intimidate the witnesses. Hence, the applications
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
may be dismissed. However, he did not dispute the fact
that the specific overt act is only alleged against the first
accused and further the petitioners do not have criminal
antecedents.
6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it
can be gathered that, the specific overt act is alleged
against the first accused, who is principally responsible
for abducting the de facto complainant and his friend and
then causing serious injuries to them. The fact remains
that 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.
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
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
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. 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.
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the
materials placed on record, especially considering the
fact that the specific overt act is alleged against the first
accused, 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, I
am of the definite view that the petitioners' further
detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow
the bail applications, but subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the applications are 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
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
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
manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence
while he is 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 passports, they shall file an
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
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 petitioners even while
the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble
B.A. Nos.4229 & 4640 of 2024
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
SD/-
rmm/7/6/2024 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
