High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-01Bail granted; petition allowed with conditions.

BA 679 of 2024: Binu and Anandu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 679 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the petitioners are to be released on bail on execution of bonds for Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court. Conditions: (i) Petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for one month or until final report, (ii) they shall not induce or threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence, (iii) they shall not commit any offences while on bail, (iv) they must surrender their passports, and (v) violation may lead to cancellation of bail; further steps as necessary by the IO with respect to recoveries per Sushila Aggarwal (cited) principles.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petition allowed with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BINU
ANANDU

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.H.O., KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• LEO LUKOSE
• ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
• S.SREEDEV
• RONY JOSE
• KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
• DERICK MATHAI SAJI
• KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI C S HRITHWIK

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail petition arises in Crime No.9/2024 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, involving accused 1 and 2 for offences under sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC. The petition seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC after the accused were arrested on 05.01.2024 and have remained in judicial custody for about 27 days. The prosecution's case is that on 05.01.2024, owing to prior animosity, the first accused uttered obscene words, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and struck him with a stone causing a fracture to his eyebrow; the second accused allegedly struck the complainant on the head with a stone, resulting in fractures. The defense contends their innocence, with no criminal antecedents, and argues that the Investigating Officer added Section 326 to obstruct bail. They point out that the investigation is nearly complete and recoveries have been made; the wound certificate has not been produced. The Public Prosecutor concedes that the investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected, though he opposes bail on the merits of the offences. After weighing the materials and considering the petitioners' lack of antecedents, the court grants bail by bond of Rs 50,000 each with two sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance before the IO, no inducement or tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and the possibility of cancellation for breach. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal for the principle that investigation and recoveries can occur during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 326 r/w Section 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they are innocent of the charges and have no criminal antecedents. They argued that the Investigating Officer deliberately added Section 326 to thwart bail and that their 27 days in judicial custody should be considered a sufficient de facto period. They stressed that the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected, though the wound certificate is not available, which they claim undermines the severity of the case. They urged the Court to grant bail, emphasizing the lack of antecedents and the need to preserve liberty pending final report or trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail but acknowledged that the investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected. He argued that the offences alleged are serious, with injuries to the defacto complainant, and that the absence of the wound certificate presently precludes a definitive assessment of gravity. While not opposing bail outright, the prosecution urged cautious consideration of bail based on the merits and the ongoing investigative context.

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 proposition that a police IO can continue investigative actions and effect recoveries even while the accused is on bail, sustaining the court’s bail conditions.

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 BA 679 of 2024: Binu and Anandu 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 THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.9/2024 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:` ``` 1 BINU AGED 34 YEARS S/O. BABU, PARAPETTYKUTTIYIL HOUSE, PARAPPETTY, THATTAYIL P.O., THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691525 2 ANANDU AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SIVARAJAN, MALAYUDE KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PONGALDI, MAMMOODU, PARANTHAL, PANDALAM, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691525 BY ADVS. LEO LUKOSE ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM ``` ## `RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.H.O., KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA)., PIN - 682031 BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:2:- ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:3:- Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.9/2024 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested on 05.01.2024 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: around 14.00 hours on 05.01.2023, out of the previous animosity of the accused with the defacto complainant, the first accused uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained him, and hit him with a stone on his right eyebrow resulting in a fracture on B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:4:- his bone. The second accused hit the de facto complainant with a stone on his head resulting in a fracture. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Leo Lukose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 326 to deny bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 27 days. The investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:5:- 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. The wound certificate is, at present, not available. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 05.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, that the wound certificate of the injured is not made available, and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:6:- 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 petitioners 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. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:7:- (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavits 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 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 B.A.No.679 of 2024 ## -:8:- 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** mtk/01.02.24 B.A.No.679 of 2024 -:9:- ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 679/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO: 9/2024 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO.158/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, PATHANAMTHITTA. ```