Ashwin s/o Saneesh v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed for pre-arrest bail subject to conditions: surrender before the IO within ten days; in case of arrest, production before the jurisdictional court on surrender; bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; passport surrender or affidavit; continued cooperation with investigation; not to intimidate witnesses or commit any other offence; potential cancellation of bail on violation; recoveries during bail may be pursued as per law including principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: BAIL GRANTED subject to standard conditions including cooperation and appearance

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashwin s/o Saneesh
Lakshmi Vilasam

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Francis Assisi TD
• Robin Ajeesh
• S. Brite Linu
• G. Nath
• Amrutha P S
• Manju Luckose

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court at Ernakulam disposed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC in Bail Application 2458 of 2024, arising from Crime No. 25/2024 of Idukki Police Station. The petitioner is the fifth accused in a multi-accused case alleged to involve offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 294(b), 323, 332, 353 and 506(i) read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 16 January 2024, a group of ten accused formed an unlawful assembly in the course of discharging duties to disperse an unlawful assembly; the 1st accused allegedly struck the defacto complainant on the chest and the 2nd accused kicked him in the knee, while others abused officers and deterred them from their duties. The petitioner is said to have hurled abuses, a bailable offence, but Section 149 IPC is invoked to deny bail. The petitioner contends his innocence, minimal involvement, and readiness to cooperate, arguing there is no specific overt act attributed to him in Annexure A1 that would attract 332 or 353 IPC; custodial interrogation is not necessary. The Public Prosecutor argues that all accused acted with common intent and custodial interrogation is required for proper investigation. The court finds no specific act by the petitioner to attract the more serious offences, notes that the injuries were inflicted by accused 1 and the Civil Police Officer, and grants pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including cooperation, surrender, bond, and other standard safeguards. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for allowing investigation and recoveries while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 143, 145, 147, 294(b), 323, 332, 353, 506(i) read with Section 149 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the petitioner is innocent and has no criminal antecedents. Annexure A1 shows that offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are attributed to accused 1 and 2; the only charge against the petitioner is abusive language, a bailable offence. The incorporation of Section 149 IPC is used to deny bail. The petitioner is willing to cooperate, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and there is no recovery required. Hence pre-arrest bail should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that accused 1 to 5 formed an unlawful assembly and that the 1st and 2nd accused assaulted the defacto complainant; the injury evidence was produced. Custodial interrogation is necessary for proper and full investigation due to common intent among the accused and to recover weapons/information if any.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify that recoveries and investigations may proceed while on bail as per higher court principles.

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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.25/2024 OF Idukki Police Station, Idukki** **PETITIONER/S:** **ASHWIN AGED 19 YEARS ASHWIN S/O SANEESH, AGED 19 YEARS LAKSHMI VILASAM, GANDINAGAR COLONY , IDUKKI COLONY P.O, IDUKKI., PIN - 685602** **BY ADVS. FRANCIS ASSISI T.D.ROBIN AJEESH S.BRITE LINU G. NATH AMRUTHA P S MANJU LUCKOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 5[th] accused in Crime No.25/2024 of the Idukki Police Station, Idukki, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 294(b), 323, 332, 353 and 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 16.01.2024 at around 12.15 hours, while the defacto complainant, the Sub Inspector of Murickassery Police Station, was discharging his duty to disburse an unlawful assembly, the accused ten in number, out of their previous animosity with the defacto complainant, the 1[st] accused hit the defacto complainant on his left side chest portion and uttered obscene words and the 2[nd] accused kicked him on his left knee and caused him pain. The rest BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 3 of the accused hurled abuses at the defacto complainant and other Police officers and deterred them from discharging their official duty. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Francis Assisi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, 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 Annexure A1 First Information Report would substantiate that the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC, the non-bailable offences, are only attracted against accused 1 and 2, who inflicted the injuries on the defacto complainant. The only accusation leveled against the petitioner is that he hurled abuses at the defacto complainant and other Police officials. The said offence is bailable in nature. It is only because Section 149 of the IPC has been incorporated, the petitioner has been denied bail. The petitioner is a BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 4 person without any criminal antecedents and is willing to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that accused 1 to 5 in prosecution of their common intention had formed an unlawful assembly and the accused 1 and 2 had assaulted the defacto complainant by hitting him on his chest and left knee. He made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant and other Civil Police Officer to show the nature of injuries suffered by them. He stated that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and full investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an analysis of the materials on record, it can be gathered that it was the accused 1 and 2 who inflicted the injuries on the defacto complainant and the BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 5 Civil Police Officer. The accident register cum wound certificates show that the defacto complainant and the Civil Police Officer had suffered contusions and tenderness on the different parts of their body. However, there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner in Annexure A1 FIR, so as to attract the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for an order of pre-arrest bail subject to the condition that he co-operates with the investigation. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 6 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 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) 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; vi). The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vii). The petitioner shall not get involved in any other BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 7 offence while on bail. 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 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** rkc/03.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2458 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2458/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 16/01/2024 IN CRIME NPO.25/2024 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2024 IN CRL. M.C NO: 183/2024 OF HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT THODUPUZHA**