Kerala High Court
Jeneesh Raju vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 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
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3942 OF 2024
CRIME NO.382/2024 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.05.2024 IN CRMC NO.573 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 3:
1 JENEESH RAJU
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.RAJU P.SAMUVAL, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VYSERY, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680523
2 JERIN P.PANAKKAL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.JIJI, PANAKKAL HOUSE,
WEST BAZAR, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT- PIN - 680503
BY ADVS.
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
SANAL C.S
SIDHARTHAN M.T.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
sr pp smt seetha s
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3942 of 2024
2
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by accused No.1 and
3 in Crime No.382/2024 of the Kunnamkulam Police
Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused ( seven
in number) for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 324, 307,
149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were
arrested on 20.03.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on
19.03.2024, at around 6.45 hours, the accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and attempted to
murder the first informant. They brutally assaulted the
first informant and caused grievous injuries with a
surgical blade. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. K.R. Arun Krishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S. the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the
accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure
A1 FIR would show that the offence under Section 307
will not be attracted. In fact, in connection with the same
incident, the petitioners were also injured, and Annexure
A1 FIR was registered by the very same police station. In
any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial
custody for the last 68 days, the investigation in the case
is practically complete, and recovery has been effected.
Moreover, the petitioners do not have any criminal
antecedents. Hence, the petitioners may be released on
bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. She submitted that there are incriminating
materials to show the involvement of the petitioners in
the crime. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is
every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and
tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may
be dismissed.
6. On appreciation of materials placed on record, it
can be gathered that the Annexure A2 FIR was
registered at the first instance on 20.03.2024, at around
03.13 hours. Subsequently, Annexure A1 was registered
at the instance of the petitioners as against the defacto
complainant and his friends on 20.03.2024, at around
18.39 hours. Therefore, there is a case and a
countercase in connection with the said incident. The
prosecution allegation is that the accused had hurt the
defacto complainant with a surgical blade. The fact
remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody
for the last 68 days, the investigation in the case is
practically complete, and recovery has been effected.
Moreover, there is no material to show that the
petitioners 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 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.
10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials
placed on record, especially on considering the fact that
the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last
68 days, that the investigation in the case is practically
complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am
of the definite view that the petitioners' further detention
is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail
application.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing
the petitioners to be released on bail on him 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
him 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 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 passports, they shall file
affidavits 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
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
Sd/-
mtk/28.05.24 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3942/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R DATED 20.03.2024 IN
CRIME NO: 384/2024 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R DATED 20.03.2024 IN
CRIME NO: 382/2024 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2024
IN CRL.M.C.NOS. 538/2024 AND 573/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE, THRISSUR
