Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1318 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1453/2023 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 681/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MIDHUN AGED 32 YEARS S/O MADHU, M.P HOUSE PULIKKARA, BHARATHANOOR P.O., BHARATHANOOR, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695609 BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODE POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.1453/2023 of the Pangode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Secctions 341, 294(b) and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2024.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around
03.40 hours on 05.12.2023, while the de facto complainant was returning home on his motorcycle, the accused was riding another motorcycle. For the reason that the de facto complainant failed to use his indicator, the accused questioned the de facto complainant, hurled abuses and assaulted him with an armlet, and the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Rajesh Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 would substantiate that the offence under Section 326 will not be attracted. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. He made available the treatment certificate of the injured to substantiate the injuries sustained by the injured. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected.
6. 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 part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.
7. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC
22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a 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.
8. Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef,
[(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has
been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
10. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing
the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 Investigating
Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(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) 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 petitioner 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
shg