High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-23Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No.3303 of 2024

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-23
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Anoop is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday 9-11 a.m. until final report; (ii) no inducement or interference with witnesses or evidence; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of any passport; (v) violation enables cancellation of bail; (vi) applications for modification to be entertained by the court; (vii) IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries as per Supreme Court guidance in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop, aged 29 years, S/o Thomas, residing at Anuvilla, Edamala Muri, Mulavana, Kollam, Pin – 691 503

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv R. Kishore (Kallumthazham)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C. S. Hrithwik, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Anoop, accused in Crime No. 225/2024 of Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam, challenging an order in a case involving alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution accuses the petitioner of assaulting the de facto complainant, hurling abuses at police, and deterring police from discharging official duties, with charges including sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 333 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC. The defense contends innocence and argues that the police have inappropriately included sections 326 and 333 to deny bail; annexed FIR (Annexure A1) allegedly demonstrates that these offences would not be attracted. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for about 40 days and the investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected; thus, bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, maintaining ongoing investigation and the risk that release could impede inquiry and intimidate witnesses. To bolster the pro-bail argument, the court refers to established jurisprudence underscoring presumption of innocence and the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, including the right to life under Article 21. After due consideration, the court finds that further detention is unnecessary and grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, sureties, regular appearance, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport, with powers to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 333 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts total innocence and contends that the police list of offences is inappropriately broadened by including sections 326 and 333, which are not applicable on the facts disclosed in Annexure A1 FIR. He notes the absence of prior criminal history, the completion of investigation, and recoveries already effected, arguing that continuing detention is unwarranted. The defence emphasizes the constitutional presumption of innocence and argues that bail should be the norm once the charge sheet is filed, with detention only as an exception, and contends that the offence set does not justify custodial restraint given the near-finality of investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counters that the investigation is ongoing and that releasing the petitioner could jeopardize the inquiry and intimidate witnesses. It asserts that the accused assaulted the de facto complainant, fracturing his tooth, and along with co-accused, obstructed police from performing official duties. Given the gravity and multiplicity of offences, the prosecution argues that bail should be denied or carefully conditioned to prevent interference and ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Cited to reiterate the presumption of innocence and as a guiding principle in bail considerations.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Cited to emphasize bail as the rule and the need for judicious, case-specific evaluation.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Cited to underscore rights of undertrial prisoners and Article 21 implications.
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Cited to support the principle that lengthy detention without trial is unjust.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to acknowledge that investigation and recoveries can proceed during bail as per higher court guidance.

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 Anoop 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`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3303 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.617/2024 OF CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.617 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` ANOOP AGED 29 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, RESIDINGV@ ANUVILLA, EDAMALA MURI, MULAVANA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 503. ``` ## **`BY ADV R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHAVARA THEKKUM BHAGOM POLICE STATION, CHAVARA KOLLAM, PIN – 691 319. ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.225/2024 of the Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 333 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that; a person named Sajeev Antony had lodged a complaint with the Thekkumbhagam Police Station, alleging that the first accused was in a relationship with his wife and was attempting to abduct her. Consequent **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` to the complaint, the police party reached the house of Sajeev Antony. Then, the first accused on seeing the police party hurled abuses at them and hit the de facto complainant on his face with a key and he suffered a fracture to his tooth. The accused 2 and 3 also manhandled the de facto complainant. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, deterred the police from discharging their official duty. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. R.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The police has deliberately incorporated Sections 326 and 333 of IPC, to deny bail to the petitioner. A reading of ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** Annexure -A1 FIR would substantiate that the above offences will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that investigation is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he hit the de facto complainant on his face, which resulted in a fracture of his tooth. It is also alleged that he along with the accused 2 and 3 deterred the police from discharging their official duty. The fact **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. 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. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** ., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9.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. 10. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, recovery has been effected and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** 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 till the final report is laid. 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 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** 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) 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 ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.3303 of 2024** below. (vii) 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/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/23/4/2024