High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-25Bail granted to the applicant on stringent cond...

ARUN M v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No.2300 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner ARUN M is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer, refraining from inducement or intimidation, not committing any offence, surrender of passport if any, providing current and permanent addresses and mobile number, and compliance with further orders or citations by the court or IO." ,
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ARUN M

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Thareeq Anver K.
• P.K.Mohananan (Palakkad)
• K.Salma Jennath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C S Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by ARUN M, the first accused in Crime No. 124/2024 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad, seeking release from custody. The offences alleged include Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 341, 323 and 307 r/w Section 149 IPC, arising from an incident at Chithrapuri Bar, Kallepully, on 28 January 2024, culminating in the first informant (Raghunandan) sustaining a chest injury and undergoing surgery. The applicant was arrested on 29 January 2024 and has been in judicial custody for about 58 days; the investigation is stated to be practically complete and recoveries effected. The prosecution contends the gravity and seriousness of the offences, including a shooting at close range, warrant denial of bail. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the accused is innocent of the allegations, that adding Section 307 to the charges was unwarranted, and that the prior bail application (Annexure A6) was dismissed, but the present circumstances—complete investigation, no flight risk, and the presumption of innocence—argue for bail under stringent conditions. The court relies on Supreme Court principles emphasizing presumption of innocence and bail as a rule, and ultimately grants bail with conditions aimed at preventing tampering, ensuring cooperation with the investigation, and safeguarding public order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 341, 323 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012)
Grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., 2018)
Delay in trial infringing Article 21 and undertrial prisoners’ rights (State of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011)
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) KHC 663 (bail conditions precedents)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence of the accusations and argues that the addition of Section 307 to the charges is unwarranted. He has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2024 (about 58 days). The investigation is reportedly complete and recoveries have been effected. Relying on principles from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., the counsel asserts that a detention prior to conviction is punitive and that bail should not be denied simply on prior conduct. The prior bail application (Annexure A6) was dismissed, but the current facts—absence of flight risk, completion of investigation, and lack of imminent danger—support granting bail with stringent conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that the offences are serious and involve shooting the informant at point-blank range, forming an unlawful assembly, and wounding staff at a bar. In light of the gravity and public interest, bail should be refused. The respondent concedes that the applicant has been in custody since 29.01.2024 and that the investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected, but argues that these factors do not override the seriousness of the alleged offences and the potential risk to witnesses and public order.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Supports presumption of innocence and cautions against denial of bail solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Bail is the rule; detention prior to conviction is an exception; discretion must be judicious.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Delay in trial infringes Article 21; supports release of undertrial prisoners.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Bail conditions laid down by Supreme 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 ARUN M 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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2300 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.124/2024 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.1451 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED:`** ``` ARUN M AGED 37 YEARS S/O MANI, AMBADI HOUSE, KANNODE KANJIKKODE POST, PUDHUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678621 ``` ``` BY ADVS. THAREEQ ANVER K. P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) K.SALMA JENNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` **Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.124/2024 of the Alathur Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 341, 323 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2024. 2. The gravemen of the prosecution case, is that; on 28.01.2024, the accused 2 and 7, along with a person named Sundaran, went to Chithrapuri Bar, Kallepully, and ordered food. As there was some delay in serving the food, they had a confrontation with the waiters in the bar. Immediately, the second accused informed the first accused about the incident, and he, along with the **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` accused 3 to 6, went over to the bar with an air gun. The first accused, at around 22.45 hours, opened fire with the air gun on one Raghunandan/the first informant, who sustained a punctured wound on his chest and he had to undergo surgery. The accused also formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the employees of the bar. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Thareeq Anver.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the offence under Section 307 to deny bail to the petitioner. By Annexure A6 order, this Court has dismissed the petitioner’s earlier **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` application. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2024, which is 58 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the 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. He submitted that the petitioner had shot the defacto complainant at point blank. He suffered a punctured wound on his chest. Considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 Honourable Supreme Court has ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** 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. 7. 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. 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. 8. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. 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 petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm 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 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: ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. 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 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** 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. (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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** 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].** mtk/25.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **B.A. No.2300 of 2024** ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2300/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** - **`ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN ALATHUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.124/2024 DATED 29/01/2024 OBTAINED FROM THE INTERNET`** - **`ANNEXURE 2`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/02/2024 IN CRL.M.P. 349/2024 IN CRIME NO.124/2024 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-1, ALATHUR`** - **`ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2024 RECEIVED FREE OF COST IN CRL.M.C. NO.927/2024 IN CRIME NO.124/2024 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT OF SESSION, PALAKKAD DIVISION`** - **`ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 29/01/2024 IN ALATHUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.125/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND HIS MEN OBTAINED FROM INTERNET`** - **`ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13/02/2024 SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT RAGHUNANDANAN`** - **`ANNEXURE 6 ORDER DATED 07-03-2024 IN BAIL APPL.1451/2024 ON HIGH COURT`**