The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society or the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the court must evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case to determine if bail should be granted.

The application is filed under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first accused in Crime No.330 of 2024 of the Kazhakuttam Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 450, 323, 324, 307, 394, and 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner was arrested on 9.5.2024.

2. The concise case of the prosecution is that: on 7.3.2024, at around 21.00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, uttered obscene words towards the de facto complainant with whom they had previous animosity since he questioned their act of consuming alcohol. They broke open the door of the de facto complainant’s residence, and extorted his mobile phone and then the second and third accused hit him with a wooden stick all over his body and the first accused inflicted a cut injury on his head. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard: Sri.Navaneeth N.Nath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A FIR would substantiate that Sec.307 is not attracted to the facts of the case. The said offence has been incorporated only to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 46 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in two other crimes of similar nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he assaulted the de facto complainant and caused a grievous injury on his head. Even though the petitioner is said to be a person with criminal antecedents, it is seen that one of the crimes is in the year 2011 for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sec.307 of the IPC and the other crime registered against the petitioner is in the year 2023 for a bailable offence. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 46 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected.

7. It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [ (1980) 1 SCC 81 ], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person.

8. 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.

9. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. , [ (2018) 3 SCC 22 ] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the 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.

10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.

11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and t