Anandu v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.230/2024 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED`** ``` ANANDU AGED 26 YEARS ``` ``` S/O REJENDRAN PILLAI, NOW AT 'REVATHI' , EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA. P.O, 0RIGINALLY FROM GIRIJA SADANAM, MEENADU, NEDUNGOLAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691578 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUNNY ZACHARIAH ANJANA R.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691572 ``` ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. NEEMA T.V. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 2 Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 12[th] accused in Crime No.230/2024 of the Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam registered against the accused (12 in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). 3. The essence of the prosecution case, is that: on 26.02.2024, at around 18.50 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly, and the accused 1 and 2 and five other identifiable persons detained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with bare hands. Subsequently, the first accused inflicted a stab injury on ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 3 his thigh with a knife and attempted to commit his murder. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Sunny Zachariah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of the First Information Report and the First Information Statement would substantiate that the specific overt act alleged against the first accused, the person who inflicted the injuries on the different parts of the body of the de facto complainant. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, except the fact that he joined along with the other accused and facilitated the first accused to commit the above offence. Therefore, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 4 effected. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner along with the other accused had facilitated the 1[st] accused to stab the de facto complainant on the different parts of his body. The second accused also joined and assaulted the de facto complainant. She submitted that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and full investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The petitioner had moved a similar application before the Court of Session, Kollam by filing Crl.M.C.No.389/2024. By Annexure 1 order, the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the details of the crime. ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 5 8. On a meticulous scrutiny of the materials placed on record, especially the First Information Report and First Information Statement, it is clear that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner to have caused stab injury on the thigh of the de facto complainant, so as to attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he in prosecution of the common intention of the accused had facilitated the accused 1 and 2 to assault the de facto complainant. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC may not be attracted against the petitioner. Hence, I hold that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and he is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that he co-operates with the investigation. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 6 i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v). The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 7 vi). The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. vii).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;; (viii)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. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (x) 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 ``` B.A. NO. 2346 OF 2024 ``` 8 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]. (xi) Needless to say, any observations made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by the Courts. SD/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm1/4/2024