IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY [SECTION]9 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940 Bail Appl No. 8456 of [SECTION]8 CRIME NO. 48/[SECTION]8 OF PERAVOOR POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: P.V. MUHAMMED AGED 29 YEARS S/O.BASHEER, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, PARAKKANDAM, VILAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE: 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3 STATE OF KERALA (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031). OTHER PRESENT: SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHI SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.[SECTION]9, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl No. 8456 of [SECTION]8 2 ORDER
This application is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
2. The applicant herein is the 2 nd accused in Crime No.48 of [SECTION]8 of the Peravoor Police Station registered under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. [ENTITY], the deceased in the subject Crime, was a BJP worker. He was one of the accused in a Crime registered under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for attempting to murder an SDPI worker. The applicant herein, who is worker of the SDPI, along with several others hatched a conspiracy to murder the aforesaid [ENTITY]. In order to give effect to their plan, they hired a Ritz car. The other conspirators waited at various places and gave intimation about the movement of [ENTITY] to the applicant and other accused. It is alleged that on 19.01.[SECTION]8 at about 5 pm, when the deceased came along with his friend in a motor bike, the applicant and other accused blocked the bike with their car and accused Nos.1 to 3 got out of the car with weapons and inflicted multiple cut injuries on the body of [ENTITY]. In order to save his life, [ENTITY] took refuge in a nearby house. It is alleged that the applicant and other accused followed him and inflicted injuries on his body resulting in his death.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that he was arrested on 20.1.[SECTION]8 and he remains in custody. The rest of the accused have all been granted bail by this Court as well as the Sessions Court. According to the counsel, bail was denied earlier on the premise that the applicant is involved in numerous other Crimes. Placing reliance on Annexure-A3 final report in Crime No.476/[SECTION]8 registered inter alia under [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is pointed out that no overt act is assigned to him and was roped in with the aid of [SECTION] [ACT]. It is further submitted that two cases made mention of by the State are cases in which he has already been acquitted by the jurisdictional court. He would also submit that the last crime which was registered against the applicant was as early as in the year [SECTION]0. He would further submit that further investigation has been ordered in the said case and the possibility of the case coming up for trial in the near future is remote.
5. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [([SECTION]2) 1 SCC 40], it was argued by the learned counsel that it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the [ACT] that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. He would vehemently urge that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an under trial for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was urged that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Referring to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [[SECTION]8 (3) SCC 22], it was submitted that though the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously, in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the severity of the allegations, submits the learned counsel.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor highlighted the antecedents of the applicant and submitted that he is a hardened criminal. According to him, if he is released on bail, he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. However, he would fairly submit that further investigation has been ordered and supplementary final report has not yet been filed.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced. The applicant has been in custody from 20.1.[SECTION]8 onwards and all others have been granted bail. Relief was denied to the applicant owing to his antecedents and due to his involvement in S.C.No.3 of [SECTION]2 pending on the files of the Sessions Court. Annexure-A3 final report shows that in the said case, which was registered as early as in the year 2008, no specific overt act is assigned to him. Furthermore, it appears that the applicant herein has been acquitted in two cases which were registered in the year [SECTION]0. The possibility of the trial commencing in the near future appears to be bleak. Having regard to the period of detention undergone, the stage of investigation and attendant facts, the applicant can now be released on bail on conditions.
8. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his 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. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1).The applicant shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturdays between
9 am and 11 am till the said condition is modified by the court having jurisdiction at the appropriate stage.
2). He shall not enter the limits of Kannur district except for appearing for trial in cases in which he is involved and for complying with the conditions in this order. If for any extraordinary reason the applicant requires to enter the limits, previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court.
3) He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
4). He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.
5). He shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
[ENTITY] JUDGE IAP