Kerala High Court
Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:79098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7642 OF 2024
CRIME NO.268/2024 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 IN CRMC NO.367 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAMUEL
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O BADI ROOPA MAJI, BANGLAPADA (H),
KASTHUR PADA P. O,
KASTHUR PADA PANCHAYATH,
MINIKALA VILLAGE,
SAMBALPUR, ODISHA, INDIA, PIN - 768001
BY ADV JOHN JUDE ISSAC
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
REPRESENTED BY POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688526
ASGP SRI GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE,
SR PP SRI C K SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79098
B.A.No.7642 of 2024 2
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2024
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole
accused in Crime No. 268/2024 of the Poochakkal Police
Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against him for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 450, 324, 326, 354, 307, and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the
accused was living with Rithika Sahu (deceased) in
different places in Kerala. Both of them hail from the
state of Odisha. The accused had suppressed the fact
about his marriage and lived with the deceased as her
husband. Later, the deceased came to learn that the
accused was married and has two children. Thereafter,
she avoided the accused. Out of this vengeance, on
2024:KER:79098
02.04.2024, the accused trespassed into the deceased's
place of employment, wrongfully restrained her and
brutally stabbed her. She succumbed to the injuries on
04.04.2024. After the incident, the accused escaped to
the state of Odisha and destroyed the evidence. Thus, the
accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. John Jude Isaac, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. K.
Suresh, the learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the
accusations levelled against him. There is no material to
substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case solely
on the basis of suspicion. In any given case, the
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more
than six months, the investigation in the case is
complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. The
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The
2024:KER:79098
petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition
that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner
may be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed
the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a
native of Odisha. The petitioner has no roots in the State
of Kerala. There are incriminating materials to
substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. If
the petitioner is released on bail, there is every
likelihood of him fleeing from justice, and the trial in the
case will get procrastinated. Hence, the application may
be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that, on
02.04.2024, the accused stabbed the deceased and she
suffered fatal injuries, and she lost her life on
04.04.2024. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on
09.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete,
and the charge sheet has been filed.
2024:KER:79098
7. It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v.
Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] and
plethora of judgments that merely because an accused
does not have roots in a state, the same shall not be
treated as a ground to deny bail to that person; instead,
the court shall include sufficient safeguards in the bail
order to ensure that the accused is available for trial.
8. Recently, in Akbal Ansari V. State (N.C.T. of
Delhi) [2024 Livelaw (SC) 829], the Honourable
Supreme Court has held that the imposing of conditions
that the accused shall reside in the place where the
crime was committed till the conclusion of trial is a
strange condition.
9. 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the
2024:KER:79098
part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of
former conduct.
10. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of
India [2024 INSC 604] has observed in the following
lines:
"21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of
bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting
bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very
serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case
for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the
rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a
case like the present case where there are stringent
conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the
same rule holds good with only modification that the bail
can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied.
The rule also means that once a case is made out for the
grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the
Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a
violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our
Constitution."
11. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi)[2024 SCC OnLine SC 934], the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is
the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed
under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
2024:KER:79098
Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right
has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of
decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following
observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D.
v. State of Kerala[(2022) SCC OnLine SC 929]
"7. The life and liberty of an individual is so
sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered
with except under the authority of law. It is a principle
which has been recognised and applied in all civilised
countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens
of India but also to aliens."
12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials
placed on record, and the law referred to in the
afore-cited decisions, and particularly on considering the
fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for
the last more than six months, the investigation in the
case is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed, and
furthermore, the petitioner has filed a memo furnishing
address wherein he proposes to live and the name and
addresses of the sureties, I am of the firm view that the
2024:KER:79098
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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
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
Jurisdictional Court as and when directed;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement or threat to the victim or her
witnesses or 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 petitioner shall not commit any offence while
he is on bail;
2024:KER:79098
(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) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Alappuzha,
without previous permission of the Jurisdictional
Court.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail
conditions shall be moved and entertained by the
Jurisdictional Court.
(viii) 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
2024:KER:79098
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
mtk/24.10.24
