Robin Sunny vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.98/2024 of the Cherupuzha Police Station, Kannur, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447, 326A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 6.2.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 4.2.2024 between 21.45 hours and 22.00 hours, while the de facto complainant was sitting in his house, the accused trespassed into the house with an intention to commit his murder, poured acid on his face. The de facto complainant suffered grievous injuries to his eyes. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.M.Anuroop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offences alleged against him cannot be attracted to the facts of the case. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the said offences to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 6.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime by pouring acid on the face of the de facto complainant. She made available the treatment record of the de facto complainant issued by the Aravind Eye Hospitals, Coimbatore dated 18.5.2024 to show the present health condition of the de facto complainant. She stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will send a wrong message to the society. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, on 4.2.2024, he trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and poured acid on his face due to his previous animosity. The de facto complainant suffered grievous injuries to his eyes. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, particularly the medical report of the de facto complainant, it shows that face of the de facto complainant has regained its normal condition and his body has recovered to the stage prior to the incident. It is only that the de facto complainant is unable to perform all his duties which he used to do prior to the incident. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 120 days, the investigation in the case is complete and final report has been laid.

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.

In State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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.

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. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 120 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and final report has been laid, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail,  if  any  filed,  and  pass  orders  on  the  same,  in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].