Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court granted bail to a former police officer accused of beating a man to death, emphasising that “It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception.” The bail application, the second filed by the petitioner, was allowed by Justice C.S. Dias, citing the petitioner’s prolonged detention, health concerns, and the completion of the investigation.

The case pertained to Dineshan A., a 55-year-old former police sub-inspector, who was accused of murdering Sajeevan, the cousin of the complainant, on August 23, 2024. The accused was booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that following a verbal dispute, the accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden stick, inflicting fatal injuries. Sajeevan was found unconscious in the accused’s work area and later succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem revealed 29 injuries, including a severe head injury, consistent with a brutal assault. The petitioner had been in custody since August 24, 2023. The investigation was completed, and the final report was submitted on November 18, 2023. Despite the serious nature of the offence, the trial had not yet commenced, leading to the petitioner’s application for bail.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate I.V. Pramod, argued that he was falsely implicated and was not responsible for the crime. The petitioner’s deteriorating mental and physical health was highlighted before the court, including a stroke that resulted in 70% disability. The defence further emphasised that the petitioner had already spent nearly a year in custody, with the trial still pending.

The Senior Public Prosecutor, Seetha S., opposed the bail, expressing concerns that the petitioner could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, given his previous position as a sub-inspector. However, she did not contest the petitioner’s health issues, which were documented in reports by the Central Prison, Kannur, and the Government Medical College Hospital.

After reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, the court observed that while there was prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement, the prolonged detention and lack of trial commencement weighed heavily in favour of granting bail. The court referred to landmark judgments by the Supreme Court, including the case of ‘Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)’ and ‘Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement’, noting that “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.” And that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment,” particularly when a speedy trial is not ensured. The court highlighted that the non-grant of bail, even in straightforward and clear-cut cases, has led to an influx of bail petitions before the court, thereby significantly contributing to the increasing backlog of cases.

Considering the petitioner’s medical condition and the improbability of an immediate trial, the court ruled that continued detention was unnecessary. The petitioner was granted bail with stringent conditions, including regular appearances at the police station, surrender of his passport, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction.

 

Cause Title: Dineshan A v State of Kerala [BAIL APPL. NO. 4921 OF 2024]