Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

1 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 558 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1302/2023 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` AJEESH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.HANEEFA,THRITHIKKATTIL HOUSE, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680004 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP SWETHA R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. Sri Grashious Kuriakose, ADGP Sri.C.K Suresh, Senior Public Prosecutor ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 558 of 2024** **----------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the fourth accused in crime No.1302/2023 of the Thrissur Town West Police Station, registered against the accused (seven in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, and 302 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 6.11.2023 around 11. p.m, the accused 1 to 6 had formed 3 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 an unlawful assembly at Poothole railway station in prosecution of their common intention to murder Sreerag, a friend of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that there were some disputes between the fourth accused and one Jiyas. In order to effect a compromise between them, the Jiyas was waiting for the fourth accused. At that time, the accused 3, 5 and 6 started assaulting the Jiyas and one Ajmal. On seeing the same, Sreerag (the deceased) intervened in the fight. Then the first accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and stabbed him with a knife which was given to him by the second accused. On seeing the same, Sreeraj had also intervened to rescue his brother (the deceased). But he was also stabbed and assaulted by the first accused. It is alleged that while the deceased was 4 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 lying at the place of occurrence, the accused 4 and 7 had restrained the deceased being taken to the hospital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.T.K Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the FIR and the remand report would substantiate that the petitioner was not at all at the place of occurrence. In fact, the petitioner was in the Police station to release his father on bail. It is at that time the incident had taken place. The petitioner has been deliberately 5 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 arrayed as an accused for the purpose of harassing him. Even going by the prosecution case, the petitioner and the seventh accused had only restrained the deceased from being taken to the hospital. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 8.11.2023, which is more than 89 days. The final report has been laid. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the accused have committed a heinous crime. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. Hence, the application may be 6 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 dismissed. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 89 days, that the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. He also admitted the fact that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he restrained the others from taking the deceased to the hospital. 6. The petitioner had moved two applications for bail before the Court of Session, Thrissur, as Crl.M.C Nos.1792/2023 and 1947/2023. Both the applications were dismissed by Annexures IV and V orders principally on the ground that the investigation in the case was in progress. However, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. 7 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 7. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, particularly Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-VIII remand report, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is that he and the seventh accused restrained the deceased from being taken to the hospital. Therefore, the offence under Sec.120B is only attributed against the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 8.11.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The final report has already been laid. Therefore, I am of the definite view that petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. 8 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; 9 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of the Town West Police Station, Thrissur, till the case is scheduled for trial, other than for the purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer (vi) 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. 10 Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 (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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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]. sd/- sks/5.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**