High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-13Bail application allowed.

Ajith v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; bail granted. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or till final report; (ii) refrain from inducing or tampering with witnesses; (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender passport or file affidavit if none; (v) furnish current and permanent addresses and mobile number; (vi) court may cancel bail for violation; (vii) bail conditions can be modified/deleted by the court below; (viii) Investigating Officer may continue investigation and recoveries as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2020 (1) KHC 663).
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajith Aged 29 years S/O Arumughan, residing at 634, Ayyillyam Cottage, Kunnathoor Medu Kara, Palakkad Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District, PIN 678013

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. K. Sandeep
• Swetha R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Shynimol V. O. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ajith, the sixth accused in crime No.225/2024 of the Nedumbassery Police Station, approaches the Kerala High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in a multi-accused case arising out of an incident near Nedumbassery Airport on 19 February 2024. The offences alleged include sections 279 (rash driving), 323 (voluntary hurt), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 427 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 29 February 2024 and remains in custody. The prosecution case contends that the informant’s car was overtaken at high speed, collided, and the accused along with others assaulted him at the airport area, thereby attracting the cited offences. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the FIR belies allegations against him, asserts that section 308 is not attracted, and argues that the investigation is largely complete with recovery effected; hence, continued detention is unwarranted. The Public Prosecutor counters with concerns about ongoing investigation and the accused’s alleged criminal antecedents, suggesting risk of witness intimidation and interference with the investigation. The Court notes there is no specific overt act linking the petitioner to the alleged 308 offence and highlights the progress of investigation and completed recoveries. After balancing factors including custody duration and absence of a concrete overt act against him, the Court grants bail, directing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and enumerates conditions (appearance, no inducement, no new offences, surrender of passport, address, and compliance). The decision cites a Supreme Court principle via Sushila Aggarwal to permit continued investigation while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439Indian Penal Code - Section 279Indian Penal Code - Section 323Indian Penal Code - Section 308Indian Penal Code - Section 427 read with Section 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits he is innocent and falsely implicated. Annexure-I FIR supports lack of involvement. He contends that section 308 is not attracted and that this offence was inserted to deny bail. Custody since 29.02.2024; investigation largely complete with recoveries. Prior antecedents exist but most are minor and pre-2020; thus, not a valid ground to deny bail given absence of concrete overt act.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor asserts ongoing investigation and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. She argues release would enable witness intimidation and hamper investigation; thus bail should be denied.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Court cites the Supreme Court principle that investigations may proceed and recoveries can be effected even when an accused is on bail.

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 Ajith 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.225/2024 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, Ernakulam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.427 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY PETITIONER/S:** **AJITH AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ARUMUGHAN, RESIDING AT 634, AYYILLYAM COTTAGE, KUNNATHOORMEDU KARA, PALAKKAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 678013** **BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP SWETHA R.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sixth accused in crime No.225/2024 of the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (twelve in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.279, 323, 308 and 427 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 19.02.2024 at around 3.45 hours, while the defacto complainant was driving his vehicle, a car bearing No.KL07-DC-7476 overtook him at high speed and hit on his car without stopping. The defacto complainant followed the said car and then another car also intervened in the said incident. All the vehicles stopped at the Nedumbassery Airport. When the defacto complainant questioned the BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 3 driver of the first vehicle, the accused 1 to 4 assaulted the defacto complainant. Then the other accused, who were traveling in the other vehicle, also assaulted the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shynimole V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure-I FIR substantiates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the offence under Section 308 of the IPC will not be attracted as against the petitioner. The said offence has been incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 4 petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in six other crimes, which has been noted by the learned Magistrate in Annexure -II order. She stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and sabotage the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refuted the above submissions and drew the attention of BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 5 this Court to the six crimes allegedly registered against the petitioner. He stated that only one of the crimes a non bailable offence is attributed against the petitioner. Whereas, all the other crimes are registered for minor offences and also prior to the year 2020. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has some antecedents, the same shall not be taken as a ground to deny bail to the petitioner. 7. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner that he inflicted injuries to the defacto complainant so as to attract the offence under Section 308 of the IPC, that he has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 6 recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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 on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 7 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; - (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 furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 8 (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 Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- rkc/13.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1871/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 225/2024 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION DATED 20.02.2024 Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.427/2024 DATED 01.03.2024**