High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-20Bail granted; accused released on bail with spe...

AL AMEEN @ AMEEN & SIYAD v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO.1843 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-20
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports or affidavit if none; (v) provide present and permanent addresses and mobile numbers; (vi) compliance with orders and possible cancellation for violation; (vii) applications for modification of bail conditions allowed; (viii) Investigating Officer may continue recoveries as needed per Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; accused released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

AL AMEEN @ AMEEN
SIYAD

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Anoop (Mulavana)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 1843 OF 2024) by accused nos. 4 and 8 in Crime No.164/2024 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition seeks release on bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC including 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365 and 308 r/w 149. The prosecution alleges that on 22.02.2024, in pursuance of a common intention, the accused restrained the informant and his friend, assaulted them with a knuckleduster, abducted the informant’s friend, and caused grievous injuries. Petitioners were arrested on 25.02.2024. They claim innocence and that their false implication is evident; they argue investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected, so further detention is unnecessary. The State opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and the likelihood of witness intimidation given criminal antecedents. The court acknowledges the presumption of innocence and the discretion in bail, noting the nearly complete investigation and recoveries. It cites Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v. Raneef to emphasize that bail is the norm and pre-trial detention must be justified. After consideration, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: bonds of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, regular reporting, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passports, provision of addresses and contact details, and potential for cancellation or modification of conditions with authority to continue investigations, including recoveries if needed per Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCIPC: 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365 & 308 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule; imprisonment before conviction is an exception
Right to life under Article 21; undertrial detention must be justified
Recovery and investigation can continue while on bail per Supreme Court guidance (Sushila Aggarwal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend total innocence and false implication. They argue that inclusion of sections 365 and 308 is aimed only at denying bail, that investigation is virtually complete, and recoveries have been effected; hence further detention is unnecessary and bail should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation, criminal antecedents of the petitioners, and the likelihood of witness intimidation and tampering if released.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Used to affirm presumption of innocence and that pre-conviction detention should be guarded and bail is the norm.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Supports the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment before conviction is an exception.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Cited for protection of Article 21 rights of undertrials and avoidance of indefinite detention.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	(2020) 1 KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify continued recoveries by police even while 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 AL AMEEN @ AMEEN & SIYAD 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 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1843 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.164/2024 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.1387 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL** **MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 & 8:** **1 AL AMEEN@AMEEN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O NAZAR, ARA VEEDU NEAR VALLI PALLI, VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695308** **2 SIYAD, AGED 24 YEARS S/O ABU, METHARUVILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR PRIYADARSHINI JUNCTION, VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695308** **BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE** **COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.1843 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 4 & 8 in Crime No.164/2024 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (8 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365 & 308 r/w.S.149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ('IPC', in short). The petitioners were arrested on 25.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 22.02.2024 at around 20.45 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the informant and his friend and the accused hit on the informant's head with a knuckleduster, and they forcefully took away his friend in an autorickshaw, and manhandled him and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.P.Anoop (Mulavana), the learned counsel **BAIL APPL.NO.1843 OF 2024** **3** appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior 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. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences under Sections 365 & 308 of the IPC have been deliberately incorporated solely for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 25.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. The petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents. Both of them have committed similar offences. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering **BAIL APPL.NO.1843 OF 2024** **4** with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that they had, in prosecution of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the informant and his friend and assaulted them and, thereafter, they abducted the friend of the informant and caused injuries to him. 7. Indisputably, the petitioners were arrested on 25.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. 8. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** ., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. **5** Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 10. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and especially taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 25.02.2024, that the investigation in the case, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject **BAIL APPL.NO.1843 OF 2024** **6** 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 one lakh 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 Officer on - Investigating 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. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; **BAIL APPL.NO.1843 OF 2024** **7** - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) The petitioners shall furnish their present address and permanent address, and their 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. - (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to **8** effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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/- **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **shg**