C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 268/2024 of the Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 450, 324, 326, 354, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused was living with Rithika Sahu (deceased) in different places in Kerala. Both of them hail from the state of Odisha. The accused had suppressed the fact about his marriage and lived with the deceased as her husband. Later, the deceased came to learn that the accused was married and has two children. Thereafter, she avoided the accused. Out of this vengeance, on 02.04.2024, the accused trespassed into the deceased’s place of employment, wrongfully restrained her and brutally stabbed her. She succumbed to the injuries on 04.04.2024. After the incident, the accused escaped to the state of Odisha and destroyed the evidence. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. John Jude Isaac, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. K.Suresh, the learned Senior 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 the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case solely on the basis of suspicion. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than six months, the investigation in the case is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a native of Odisha. The petitioner has no roots in the State of Kerala. There are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice, and the trial in the case will get procrastinated. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that, on 02.04.2024, the accused stabbed the deceased and she suffered fatal injuries, and she lost her life on 04.04.2024. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed.
7. It is well settled in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] and plethora of judgments that merely because an accused does not have roots in a state, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person; instead, the court shall include sufficient safeguards in the bail order to ensure that the accused is available for trial.
8. Recently, in Akbal Ansari V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) [2024 Livelaw (SC) 829], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the imposing of conditions that the accused shall reside in the place where the crime was committed till the conclusion of trial is a strange condition.
9. 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.
10. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India [2024 INSC 604] 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.”
11. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)[2024 SCC OnLine SC 934], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala[(2022) SCC OnLine SC 929]
“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.”
12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and the law referred to in the afore-cited decisions, and particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than six months, the investigation in the case is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed, and furthermore, the petitioner has filed a memo furnishing address wherein he proposes to live and the name and addresses of the sureties, I am of the firm 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 Jurisdictional Court as and when directed;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to the victim or her witnesses or 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) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Alappuzha, without previous permission of the Jurisdictional Court.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the Jurisdictional Court.
(viii) 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].
