The presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution are fundamental legal principles that influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Presumption of Innocence and Grant of Bail
Fact of the Case:

The accused filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code. The accused were arrested and had been in judicial custody since the date of arrest. The prosecution alleged that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the first informant and his friends, as well as committed mischief.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the submissions of the counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor. After evaluating the facts, circumstances, and the stage of investigation, the court found that the further detention of the accused was unnecessary and granted bail to the accused with specific conditions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the accused should be granted bail given the serious nature of the charges and the stage of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also considered the stage of investigation and the practical completion of the same.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the accused to be released on bail upon executing a bond with specific conditions, including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer and non-inducement or threat to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.64/2024 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) & 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested on 05.01.2024.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that:

on 01.01.2024, at around 16.15 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, out of their previous animosity towards the first informant and in an intention to murder him, using dangerous weapon, hit the first informant and his friends on their heads and hands. The accused also destroyed the motorcycle of the first informant and committed mischief to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shynimol V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. In any case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 05.01.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary.

Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the accused are persons with criminal antecedents. The injured had suffered serious injuries. The investigation in the case is not complete. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention to murder the first informant and his friends, assaulted them and caused grievous injuries to them. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences.

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 a 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.

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 to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially after taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 05.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary.

Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document