STATE OF KERALA v. CBI & Anr.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101 OTHER PRESENT: sr pp smt neema t v THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.1036 of 2024 -2-

O R D E R The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.1662 of 2023 of the Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 26.12.2023.

The essence of the prosecution case is that on

25.12.2023 at about 6.30 a.m, the accused 1 to 4 along with other identifiable persons, in prosecution of their common object formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and the 1st accused hit him on his head with a sharp weapon. It is only because the defacto complainant warded off the attack, he B.A.No.1036 of 2024 -3- sustained a lesser injury on his hand and forehead. If the injury had fallen on the head of the defacto complainant, he would have lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard Sri. Cibi Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 26.12.2023, which is more than 53 days. The investigation in the case is practically completed and recoveries have been effected. The 2nd accused has been released on bail by Annexure II order by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, in Crl.M.C. No.189 of 2024. The B.A.No.1036 of 2024 -4- petitioners are at par with the said accused. Therefore, the petitioners may be also released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless she conceded to the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since the last 53 days and the 2nd accused has been released on bail by Annexure II order.

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. B.A.No.1036 of 2024 -5-

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.

Subsequently, in State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that under trial 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.