Allowed

Arbaz Khan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021Bail Appl./8043/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with robbery and culpable homicide. Considering no criminal antecedents, an affidavit undertaking residence and employment, and the period of detention, the court granted bail on stringent conditions including sureties, residence fixation, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum subject to stringent conditions regarding residence, passport surrender, and non-interfe

Arbaz Khan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.83/2020 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ARBAZ KHAN AGED 30 YEARS SON OF GHAYAS KHAN, CHAUDHRI CHOK, ALIGARH, DOHARRA MAFI, KOLI, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH PIN - 202001

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in S.C.No.463 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam. In the said case, he faces indictment under Sections 454, 459, 392, 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.2.2020 at about 11.45 am, the petitioner herein along with the 2nd accused, with intent to commit robbery, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, an old lady, and committed robbery after wrongfully restraining her and caused hurt. On hearing the cries of the lady, neighbours came to her rescue and the petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended while he was attempting to make good his escape. The petitioner was arrested on 21.2.2020 and he has been in custody since then. The investigation was completed and final report was laid on 27.4.2020. The case was committed to the Court of Session and it appears that the charge has not been framed. The petitioner moved an application before the Court of Session and by Annexure-1 order, his application was rejected.

¶19

Smt.Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that bail was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he is a native of Uttar Pradesh. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is innocent and he was apprehended while he was found in the vicinity. According to

¶20

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020 3

¶21

the learned counsel, the petitioner is not involved in any other crimes and his continued detention in the facts and circumstances is unwarranted. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a citizen of India and reference is made to Annexure- 2 Aadhar Card wherein his details and address is mentioned. According to the learned counsel, a certain Mookada Aboobacker Rahim has filed an affidavit before this Court undertaking that he shall arrange accommodation for the petitioner at a house at Vazhakulam Panchayat Door No. 124, Ward No. 8, Vazhakulam Panchayat, Mudikkal P.O., Perumbavoor and that he shall also arrange a job for the petitioner in a plywood factory at Perumbavoor. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner shall comply with all conditions that may be imposed on him to ensure that he shall not leave the Ernakulam District till the trial is completed. The petitioner is also prepared to furnish local sureties to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, contends the learned counsel.

¶22

Smt. Anitha would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 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 Constitution 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. She 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

¶23

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020 4

¶24

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 the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (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. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef [(2011) 1 SCC 784] and it was argued that when under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.

¶25

Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution witnesses or otherwise polluting the process of justice can be totally extenuated by imposing appropriate conditions. The long period of detention undergone by the petitioner is highlighted by the learned counsel to persuade this Court to release him on stringent conditions.

¶26

Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is contended that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and by Annexure- 3 order dated 3.7.2020, this Court had rejected the application. There is no change in circumstances to take a different view now.

¶27

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020 5

¶28

It is further submitted that the victim is a senior citizen and in her 80’s. She was brutally attacked by the petitioner and his friend and she was even threatened by brandishing guns. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would make himself scarce, and turn the trial into a farce. Relying on the judgment of the Apex court in Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. [2008 KHC 6796], it was argued that detention in jail as an undertrial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, the evidence collected by the prosecution clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner herein.

¶29

I have anxiously considered the submissions and have perused the materials which are made available.

¶30

The records reveal that the petitioner herein was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 21.2.2020 and he has been in custody for almost an year. There cannot be any doubt that the allegations raised against the petitioner are grave. The petitioner along with another man had trespassed into the house of the victim and had committed robbery of her mobile phone. Some injuries were also inflicted. The final report was laid on 27.4.2020. To ascertain the prospects of expediting the trial, this Court had called for a report from the Court of Session. In the said report, it is stated that the charge is yet to be framed and the prosecution proposes to examine 21 witnesses to prove its case. In view of the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic, there can be some delay in securing the presence of the witnesses, states the learned Sessions Judge.

¶31

The petitioner has stated that he shall remain in the State of Kerala.

¶32

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020 6

¶33

He has been provided with an avocation and place of residence by Sri. Mookada Aboobacker Rahim and the said person has sworn to an affidavit as well. Annexure- 2 Aadhar card produced by the petitioner shows that he has a permanent place of abode. As held by the Apex Court in G.Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [AIR 1978 SC 429] , 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. It is trite that the principles which should guide the Courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail or not are the probability of the accused appearing to take the trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. The fact that the petitioner has no criminal involvement prior to the incident cannot be lost sight of. Having regard to the period of detention undergone, lack of criminal antecedents and attendant facts, I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions to ensure the interest of the prosecution, he can now be released on bail.

¶34

In the result, this application will stand allowed and the petitioner 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 sureties shall be persons having immovable properties in the State of Kerala. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶35

The petitioner shall record his presence at Perumbavoor by appearing before the Station House Officer, Perumbavoor Police Station between 10 am and 11 am on all Sundays. The Station House Officer, Perumbavoor police station shall regularly

¶36

Bail Appl..No.8043 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

intimate the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North police station about the said fact.

¶39

The petitioner shall reside at Vazhakulam Panchayat Door No. 124, Ward No. 8, Vazhakulam Panchayat, Mudikkal P.O., Perumbavoor and he shall furnish his mobile number, local address and permanent address to the investigating officer within a period of one week from the date of enlargement of bail. He shall not change his place of residence and mobile phone number without securing previous consent of the investigating officer.

¶40

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not contact the victim.

¶41

He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶42

He shall not leave Ernakulam District until the trial is over.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Arbaz Khan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbaz Khan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veeraputhran.S. Vs State of Kerala

Venugopalan Nair C.P. Vs Biju Prabhkar

Malankara Syrian Catholicate Vs the District Collector

K.J.Stephen Vs State Police Chief

Ambika Devi T. Vs Biju Prabhakar , IAS

Sudheer E.R. Vs Sasidharan Pilla.M