IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 19TH BHADRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 7204 OF 2024 CRIME NO.520/2024 OF Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2024 IN CRMC NO.2467 OF 2024 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:

JOSEPH @ JOY AGED 76 YEARS S/O PAILIPILLA VENATTU VEETTIIL, THONNIKKA KARA, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682310 BY ADVS.

T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN T. SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS.

SR.PP.SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J -------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.7204 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 10th day of September, 2024

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS'), by the sole accused in Crime No.520/2024 of the Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on

19.05.2024, at around 17:30 hours, the accused, with an intention to murder his wife, had assaulted her with a hammer and sickle, and she suffered fatal injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the very same day.

Thus, the accused committed the above offence.

3. Heard; Sri.Unnikrishnan T.A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned 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 that the petitioner has committed the above offence. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 302 of the IPC to see that the petitioner is incarcerated. The petitioner is a 76 year old man without any criminal antecedents. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 115 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him influencing the witnesses because all of them are his relatives, and also tampering with the evidence . Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid on 14.08.2024.

6. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had assaulted his wife and inflicted fatal injuries on her, and she lost her life on the very same day. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 115 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid.

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. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in ma