RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.933 of 2019 of the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, he finds himself charge-sheeted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the IPC. He was arrested in connection with the crime on 12.3.2019 and he remains in custody. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court and by order dated 12.12.2019, his application was dismissed.

3. The crux of the prosecution allegation as per the charge is as under:

The petitioner was 19 years of age when the offence was committed. He was having an infatuation with the deceased who at the relevant point of time was aged 18 years and was pursuing her Radiology course. It is alleged that on 12.03.2019 at about 9.15 am, the petitioner approached the deceased, armed with a knife and a can of petrol and intercepted her near Chilanka Junction at Thiruvalla. He then proceeded and inflicted a stab injury on the right side of her chest. While the hapless girl was writhing in pain, the petitioner poured petrol over her body and set her ablaze. Crime No. 549 of 2019 was initially registered under Section 307 of the IPC, based on the information furnished by the injured girl. Though the girl was immediately rushed to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla, she succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on 20.03.2019. The investigation was completed in quick time and the final report was laid. The case is now pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Sri. Omar Salim, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the accused was arrested on 12.03.2019 and he remains in custody since then. It is submitted that at the time of the commission of the offence, the petitioner was a teenager. Since his parents ditched him when he got involved in the crime, he was not able to approach this Court seeking bail at an earlier stage. The learned counsel further submitted that the chances of the trial taking place in the near future is remote. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 1978 SC 429 [LQ/SC/1977/333] ] and it is contended that the requirement for bail is to secure the attendance of the prisoner and it is the duty of the court to admit the accused to bail, wherever practical, unless there are strong grounds for supposing that such person will not appear to take the trial.

5. The submission of the learned counsel is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who asserts that the allegations are extremely grave. It is submitted that a girl aged 18 years was murdered by the petitioner herein in a very brutal manner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.

6. I take note of the fact that the petitioner was a teenager when the offence was committed. He has been in judicial custody since 12.3.2019. Though there cannot be any dispute that the allegations are extremely grave, the fact remains that the investigation has been completed and the final report has been laid. The fact that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents cannot be lost sight of. As held by the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40] [LQ/SC/2011/1492] , the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, that is, a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty and it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty if any person should be punished before conviction in respect of any matter or under any circumstances, upon the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty. 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 3 SCC 22] [LQ/SC/2018/152] had held that grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or prison is an exception. Even 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. In State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784] [LQ/SC/2011/2] , it was held that when under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody for an indefinite period due to the delay in concluding the trial, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.

7. Having regard to the fact that the final report has been laid after completion of the investigation and taking note of the period of incarceration undergone, the reasonable possibility of securing his presence at the stage of trial, and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not necessary. He can now be granted bail by imposing stringent conditions. It is made clear that any expression of opinion for the purpose of deciding this bail application shall not be regarded as an expression on the merits of the case.

8. Resultantly, this application will stand allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand 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). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

2). He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

3) He shall not leave the State of Kerala without seeking previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.

4). He shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction."

9. 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.