C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 483 of the the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS'), by the sole accused in Crime No.149/2024 of the Town South Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.01.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 28.01.2024, at around 18:30 hours, the accused and the deceased named Arumughan had a wordy altercation. Subsequently, when the deceased was walking in front of the residence of one Satheesh Kumar, the accused stabbed the deceased on his neck and chest and he suffered fatal injuries and lost his life. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.
3. Heard; Sri.A.V.Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K. Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offence. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last seven months, the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has been laid and the case has now been committed to the Court of Session-V, Palakkad and numbered as S.C No.574 of 2024. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and final report has been laid on 09.04.2024, and further that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
6. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had murdered the deceased by stabbing him with a knife. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last seven months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid.
7. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another [(2022) 10 SCC 51], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after a meticulous survey of all the precedents on the law governing bail, has laid down exhaustive guidelines for the Courts while dealing with the bail applications. It is profitable to extract the relevant paragraphs of the decision in this context of the case on hand, which reads thus:
“12. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of this Court. This again is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 302] , held that : (SCC pp. 22-23 & 27, paras 19 & 24).”
13. Further this Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] , has observed that : (SCC p. 52, paras 21-23)
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
8. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.
9. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:
“21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution”.
10. Similarly, the Honourable Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another ((2024) SCC OnLine SC 1693), after surveying the case law on bail has observed as follows:
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
11. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submission made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.01.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has been laid and further that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application.
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 on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No.149/2024.
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 him 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. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Palakkad without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court.
vi. The petitioner shall not enter the Police Station limits of the eye witnesses till the conculsion of the trial in Crime No.149/2024.
vii. 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.
viii. Application for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
ix. 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].
