High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-18Bail allowed

Ashik v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1864 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-18
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Ashik is ordered to be released on bail on a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to the conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month or until the final report is filed, whichever is earlier; (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce or threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence; (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) the petitioner shall surrender any passport; (v) the court may cancel bail on violation of conditions and entertain applications for modification; (vi) the Investigating Officer may pursue recoveries as deemed appropriate, including action taken in accordance with Sushila Aggarwal; (vii) all other lawful conditions apply, and additional conditions may be imposed as necessary by the court below.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashik

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mithun P.
• Merin Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 18 March 2024, the Kerala High Court heard Bail Application No.1864 of 2024 filed by Ashik, the first accused in Crime No.130/2024 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b) and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 23 January 2024. The prosecution case alleges that on 21 January 2024, around 11 pm, the accused restrained the de facto complainant and his brother on a motorcycle and assaulted them with dangerous weapons; the second accused stabbed the complainant with a crowbar, causing grievous injuries including a head injury and a finger fracture; the first accused is said to have used a chopper; the other accused allegedly aided. The petitioner claims total innocence and is in custody since 23 January 2024; the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. The Public Prosecutor contends the offence is heinous and the petitioner’s release could lead to recurrence, noting the accused’s involvement in two other similar cases. The court relies on established principles: presumption of innocence until guilt is proved (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI); bail as a general rule and detention as an exception (Dataram Singh v. State of UP); and the concern that indefinite detention may violate Article 21 (State of Kerala v. Raneef). Observing the near-complete investigation and recoveries, the court concludes that further detention is unnecessary and grants bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; appearance before IO every Saturday for one month or till final report; prohibition on inducing or intimidating witnesses; prohibition on committing offenses while on bail; surrender of passport if any; enforcement of conditions and potential cancellation of bail for violation; IO may continue investigations and, if necessary, effect recoveries as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. The order is issued by Judge C.S. Dias.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b) & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule; imprisonment before conviction is an exception
Indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Recoveries/conditions on bail as permitted by Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in Crime No.130/2024. He has remained in custody since 23 January 2024, while the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. He contends that continued detention is unjustified and that the Courts should adhere to the presumption of innocence and grant bail in the absence of compelling reasons to keep him in custody. He urges that bail with suitable conditions would enable him to prepare his defense, maintain his family, and avoid punitive pre-conviction detention. He relies on established principles that bail is the rule and imprisonment before conviction is an exception, and that a prolonged detention could amount to an infringement of life and personal liberty. He also points to the need for judicial compassion and balanced discretion in bail matters, as reflected in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of UP, State of Kerala v. Raneef, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the case involves a serious, heinous act with violent aggression; the accused is alleged to be involved in two other similar cases, indicating a pattern that makes him potentially dangerous if released. The investigation is not complete, and the delay in trial could leave the victim and witnesses at risk. The prosecution argues that bail should be refused or heavily conditioned to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation, or re-offending, and to ensure the speedy conclusion of the trial. It contends that the gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances necessitate strict scrutiny before granting bail, despite the general presumption of innocence.

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 bail should not be refused solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P	2018 (3) SCC 22	Positive	Supports the view that bail is the general rule and detention is the exception, with discretion to be exercised judiciously.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	2011 (1) SCC 784	Positive	Reiterates that indefinite detention infringes Article 21 rights of the undertrial.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for authority on maintainability of recoveries by IO during bail as per 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 Ashik 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 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1864 OF 2024 CRIME NO.130/2024 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC NO.533 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` ASHIK, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. AYOOB, PACHIKODE, PUTHUVAL PUTHENVEEDU BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM, PIN – 695501 ``` ``` BY ADVS.MITHUN P. MERIN THOMAS ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:2:-_ Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 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.130/2024 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (four in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b) & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The petitioner was arrested on 23.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 21.01.2024, at around 23 hours, the accused restrained the de-facto complainant and his brother, who were travelling on a motorcycle, and attacked them with dangerous weapons and attempted to murder them. The second accused by using a crowbar stabbed the de-facto complainant on the left side of his head, _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:3:-_ causing grievous injuries and the first accused used a chopper and attempted to hit him on his head. It was only because the de-facto complainant evaded the attempt, he did not lose his life. However, he suffered a fracture of his finger. The accused Nos.3 & 4 also aided the other accused to commit the offences. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Mithun Pavanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the bail application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024. The investigation in the case is practically _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:4:-_ complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. 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. The petitioner has committed a very henious crime. The first accused is involved in two other cases of similar nature. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. 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 _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:5:-_ 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 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, _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:6:-_ the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. 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 _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 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. _B.A.No.1864/2024_ _-:8:-_ - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court 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** DST/18.03.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge