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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29421

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
SATHEESAN M S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 2963/2024



The presumption of innocence is fundamental, and bail should be granted unless substantial grounds for denial exist, particularly when ongoing detention is unnecessary.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Section 439, IPC Sections 341, 323, 326, 506, 307, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The court evaluated the conditions for granting bail focusing on the presumption of innocence, the status of the investigation, and the necessity of further detention of the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The accused were charged with serious offences following an alleged assault on the de facto complainant, resulting in grievous injuries. The case involved discussions surrounding their claims of innocence, previous conduct of the complainant, and the status of the investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the petitioners had been in custody since the date of arrest, the investigation was nearly complete, and both sides presented valid arguments regarding the necessity of detention.

Issues: The key issues were whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the charges against them and the arguments presented related to the completion of the investigation and lack of criminal antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the exceptional nature of imprisonment before conviction, and the need for judicious consideration in bail applications.

Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, subject to specific conditions.

ORDER

The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the accused 1 and 2 in crime No.100/2024 of the Thalapuzha Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 326, 506 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.92(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . The petitioners were arrested on 14.2.2024.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 13.2.2024 at around 7.30 hours, the accused 1 and 2, who are the relatives of the de facto complainant, in furtherance of their common intention, had caught hold of the neck of the de BA No.2963 of 2024 facto complainant, chopped him and pushed him down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused tied a stone in a towel and hit on the head of the de facto complainant, who suffered a fracture on his skull. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences under Secs 326 and 307 of the IPC have been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioners. The de facto complainant is a habitual offender and several cases have been registered against him. Actually, the de facto complainant tried to attack the petitioners, who purportedly warded off the attack. In any given case, the petitioners have BA No.2963 of 2024 been in judicial custody since 14.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioners had caused grievous injuries to the de facto complainant, who suffered a fracture on his skull. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them attacking the de facto complainant. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and the investigation is practically complete.

6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant, who suffered a fracture on his skull. The fact remains that the BA No.2963 of 2024 petitioners have been in judicial custody since 14.2.2024 and the investigation in the case is practically complete.

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 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. 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.

BA No.2963 of 2024 9. 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.

10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record and the rival s

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