Ashkar A.S and Mohammed Bilal S. v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-06-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- The application is allowed. The petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC on terms: surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000 each; appear for interrogation as directed; refrain from inducement or witness tampering; surrender any passport within a week; abstain from involvement in other offences; and court may cancel bail for violation of conditions. The order clarifies that it is for purposes of the bail application and not a determination on merits, and cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted (pre-arrest bail) to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC, with specified conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Ashkar A.S.
- Mohammed Bilal S.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mithun P.
- • Afsal Khan H.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri C. S. Hrithwik
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) in Bail Application No. 3679 of 2024 filed by Ashkar A.S. and Mohammed Bilal S. against the State of Kerala. The petitioners are accused no. 7 and 8 in Crime No. 548/2024 of Kazhakkuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from alleged offences including 143, 147, 148, 149, 342, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, in a case where eleven persons were involved. The prosecution outlines that on 20.04.2024, a common intention led to an unlawful assembly; the 3rd accused slapped the complainant, the 2nd, 4th and 5th accused beat his brother, and the 1st accused stabbed the complainant in the chest, back, neck and hand; the 1st accused also struck the brother with a steel dustbin, causing injuries to both. The petitioners contend there is no specific overt act attributable to them to attract the non-bailable offence of Section 307, and their custodial interrogation is unnecessary. They point to Annexure A2, which granted pre-arrest bail to the 11th accused on a similar ground. The Public Prosecutor initially opposes bail, arguing investigation is ongoing, but concedes the 11th accused obtained pre-arrest bail for lack of overt acts against him. The court reasons the petitioners are similarly situated to the 11th accused and grants pre-arrest bail subject to standard conditions, including surrender within 10 days, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance for interrogation, no inducement, passport surrender, and no offence involvement. The order notes that these observations are for considering the application and do not reflect on merits, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Power of Investigating Officer to investigate and effect recoveries while on bail (as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that they are totally innocent and that Annexure A1 (FIR) lacks any specific overt act attributed to them that would attract the non-bailable offence under Section 307 IPC. They emphasize that only the 1st accused is alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries, and there is no custodial necessity for interrogation. They seek pre-arrest bail on the same grounds as the 11th accused, referring to Annexure A2 (order granting bail). They argue parity with the 11th accused and point out that no recoveries are to be effected from them; they are not involved in any other offence and undertake to cooperate with investigations while on bail. They request that standard bail conditions be imposed and that they be treated similarly to the 11th accused.
Contentions of Respondents
The State’s counsel opposes unconditional bail, noting ongoing investigation and the potential risk of interference with witnesses or tampering with evidence. He concedes, however, that the 11th accused received pre-arrest bail based on the finding that the overt act was alleged only against the 1st accused, suggesting parity may be appropriate if the petitioners are similarly situated. The prosecutor emphasizes the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the investigation, while acknowledging the court’s past order for the 11th accused as a precedent.”
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited to support the principle that Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and effect recoveries while the accused is on bail, and to guide the permissible scope of bail conditions. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Ashkar A.S and Mohammed Bilal S. 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.