C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024, by the accused 15 and 16 in Crime No. 481/2024 of the
Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against 21 accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 04.04.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 03.04.2024, at around 18.30 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention had formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly due to their previous animosity towards the de facto complainant and his friends, wrongfully restrained the de
facto complainant and his friends, and the first accused stabbed one Akshay and Santhosh who were along with the de facto complainant with an
intention to murder them. Then, the first accused also stabbed Prajith and the de facto complainant, and all the other accused assaulted the de facto
complainant’s friends, namely, Shahil, Santhosh, Abhilash, Manoj, Ajith and Sujith, with knives and other deadly weapons. Due to the grievous
injuries suffered by Akshay, he succumbed to his injuries, and the injured Santhosh succumbed to the injuries on 04.04.2024. Thus, the accused have
committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously argued that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against
them. A reading of the First Information Report and the final report would establish that the specific overt acts are only alleged against the accused 1
to 4 and 9, who have committed the predicate offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were along with
the other accused when the above incident occurred. By no stretch of imagination can the offences under Sections 307 and 302 be attributed against
the petitioners, who have allegedly played only a very minor role. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 04.04.2024, the
investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected, and the final report has been laid on 30.6.2024. In addition to the same, the accused
5, 13, 17, 18, and 19 have been enlarged on bail by this Court as per Annexure IV order dated 24.07.2024. The petitioners are similarly placed with the
said accused. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are at par with the accused 5, 13, 17, 18 and
19, who has already been released on bail by this Court as per Annexure IV order. He stated that the investigation in the case is complete and the
final report has been laid on 30.06.2024.
6. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his
friends, and the accused 1 to 4 and 9 inflicted grievous injuries on the injured, and two persons named Akshay and Santhosh lost their lives in the
incident.
7. On a meticulous scrutiny of the First Information Report, the bail objection report, as well as the final report, it can be seen that the specific overt
act of stabbing the injured has been attributed against the accused 1 to 4 and 9. Apparently, there is no specific overt act alleged against the
petitioners. However, that is a matter ultimately decided after trial. Moreover, as per the bail objection report, the petitioners do not have any criminal
antecedents. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 04.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery
has been effected, and the final report has been laid on 30.06.2024.
8. 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.
9. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the 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.
10. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under
trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable
and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. 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.
12. 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 for trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment.
Â
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.
13. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the
fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners so as to attract the predicate offence under Section 302 of IPC, the petitioners
have been in judicial custody since 04.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid
on 30.06.2024 and further that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioners’ 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 petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) each 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 petitioners 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. 481/2024. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thrissur without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court;
(v) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they
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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].
(x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the applications and the same shall not be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts.
