SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4527

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
NAGARAJ KUMARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 262/2023



Advocates:
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY, VIJINA K.ARUL MURALIDHARAN

Pre-conviction detention can be punitive; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure adherence to legal proceedings.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - Summary: The court considered the application for regular bail under S. 439 of the Code, evaluating the nature of allegations and the applicant's ongoing detention against the backdrop of prior criminal records, concluding that pre-conviction detention could be punitive.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is accused of theft and trespass, having allegedly entered a complainant's house and stole money. The prosecution argued against bail due to the petitioner's previous criminal history, while the petitioner contested the charges as false.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that extended detention without conviction is unjust, acknowledging the accused's past offenses but permitting bail with strict conditions to mitigate potential risks.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the severity of the allegations and prior criminal records.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continual custody without conviction constitutes punishment, warranting the granting of bail under controlled conditions to ensure public safety and trial integrity.

Final Decision: Bail granted subject to strict conditions.

ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.524/2022 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences punishable under Sections 454, 461, 380 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.08.2022, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and committed theft of Rs.9,500/- and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Smt.Vijina K., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2022 and has been in custody since then.

5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that there are 15 cases pending against the petitioner in Tamil Nadu and two other cases pending against him in Kerala and considering the criminal antecedents, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the records produced. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner will amount to punishment prior to conviction and therefore, the petitioner ought to be released on bail. However, considering the alleged criminal antecedents pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, strict conditions can be imposed.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions :- (a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent local sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the

4th Saturday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., until conclusion of trial and shall provide the details of his contact address and telephone numbers.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or his family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top