High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-12Bail granted

Adhil, Shereef and Shemeer v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-01-12
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The court releases the petitioners on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(viii) including regular appearance before the IO, refrain from any inducement or tampering, prohibition from committing offences while on bail, surrender of passport, and authority to cancel bail for violations. The court notes that the investigation is progressing with no recoveries presently required and that stringent conditions coupled with monitoring would safeguard the investigation. It also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi to permit ongoing investigation and recoveries if necessary under bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Adhil
Shereef
Shemeer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, PIN - 682031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sarath Babu Kotakkal
• Archana Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application before the Kerala High Court, filed under Section 439 CrPC, by accused Adhil, Shereef and Shemeer in Crime No. 929/2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, for offences including 341, 323, 324, 326, 506 and 308 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners surrendered on 12 December 2023 and have been in custody since then. The prosecution claims that on 4 October 2023, due to prior animosity, the accused attacked the de facto complainant with an iron pipe, causing a nasal fracture and injuries to the complainant and a friend; the second accused allegedly struck the complainant on the head, and the third intimidated the complainant. The petitioners contend that Annexure A2 FIR was registered as retaliation to pressurize them not to prosecute Annexure A1, which was registered at their instance. They assert there is no material recovery to be effected, the investigation is practically complete, and they are willing to cooperate under stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and potential disturbance to public tranquility due to the complainant's injuries. The learned judge, noting that Annexure A1 was registered at the petitioners’ instance and that the petitioners have been in custody for about a month and a half with no further recoveries likely, held that continued detention is unnecessary and granted bail with stringent conditions. The order emphasizes the court's power to impose conditions and to monitor progress, including recoveries if needed under established precedence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506, 308 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another (2020 (1) KHC 663)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not established any likelihood of dangerousness or interference with witnesses. The petitioners claim innocence and contend Annexure A2 was lodged as retaliation to pressurize them to drop Annexure A1. They emphasize that they have surrendered and have been in custody since 12 December 2023, the investigation is near completion, and there is no material recovery to be effected. They are ready to cooperate and comply with stringent conditions. The petitioners urge the court to exercise its discretion under Section 439(2) CrPC to grant bail, noting the absence of a ground to detain them longer and highlighting the principle that bail can be granted with proper conditions when preventive detention is not necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that the investigation is ongoing, the prosecution case is serious, and the injured complainant sustained a nasal fracture. She asserts that releasing the petitioners could disrupt peace and tranquility in the locality, given the gravity of the allegations and the potential for intimidation. The reliance on the petitioners’ earlier role in initiating the first FIR does not negate the seriousness of the offences now alleged, and the state contends that bail should be refused to ensure fair investigation and to prevent tampering with witnesses or evidence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that an Investigating Officer may continue investigation and effect recoveries even while accused are on bail, and that bail can be maintained with proper conditions under the existing law.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Adhil, Shereef and Shemeer v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 11375 OF 2023 CRIME NO.929/2023 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:` ``` 1ADHIL, AGED 18 YEARS VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODAMUKKU DESOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680513 2SHEREEF, AGED 41 YEARS KUNJUMUHAMMAD, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, KODAMUKKU DESOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680513 3SHEMEER, AGED 42 YEARS MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, KODAMUKKU DESOM, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680513 BY ADVS. SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL ARCHANA VIJAYAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of January, 2024 ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.929/ 2023 registered by the Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506, 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners had surrendered and were arrested on 12.12.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: due to the previous animosity between the accused and the de facto complainant, on 4.10.2023, at 10 hours, the accused armed with iron pipe and dangerous weapons went to the shop of one Kassim, and the first accused struck the de facto complainant with an iron pipe on his right leg and nose and he sustained a fracture on his nasal bone and ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 3 ``` injury to his right leg. When the friend of the de facto complainant attempted to intervene, 1st accused beat him also with the iron pipe. The 2[nd] accused struck the de facto complainant on his head and the 3[rd] accused intimidated to do away with the de facto complainant. Had the de facto complainant not evaded the struck, he would have lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Sarath Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. Annexure A2 FIR has been registered as an aftermath to Annexure A1 FIR, which was registered at the instance of the petitioners for the injuries that was sustained to them at the instance of the de facto complainant and others. It is only to pressurize the petitioners not to prosecute Annexure A1, that ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 4 ``` Annexure A2 has now been registered. The petitioners are in incarceration since 12.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Going by the wound certificate, the de facto complainant had sustained a fracture to his nasal bone. There is every likelihood of the tranquility in the locality being affected, if the petitioners are let off on bail. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly the fact that Annexure A1 FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioners as against the de facto complaint and others alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC and that the ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 5 ``` petitioners are in incarceration since 12.12.2023 and further that the investigation has progressed and there is no recovery to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. Therefore, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail, 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 alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. And they shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 6 ``` 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 he is on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, 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 ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 7 ``` below. (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 petitioners even while the petitioners is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm12/1/2024 ``` B.A. NO.11375 OF 2023 8 ``` ## `A PPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11375/2023` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 899 OF 2023 OF THE PAVARATTY POLICE STATION DATED 27.09.2023 Annexure A2THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 929 OF 2023 OF THE PAVARATTY POLICE STATION DATED 06.10.2023 ``` ``` Annexure A3THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPL. NO 10031 OF 2023 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT DATED 04.12.2023 ``` ``` Annexure A4THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P 7025/2023 OF THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 13.12.2023 ```