Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail application allowed; petitioners released ...

BAIL APPL. NO. 1036 OF 2024, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1036 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-02-14
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for a month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no offence during bail; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) court may cancel bail for violation; (vi) applications to modify bail conditions to be moved before the court below; (vii) recoveries may be effected by the Investigating Officer even while on bail, consistent with Sushila Aggarwal. The Bench: C.S. Dias, J. Sd/-
Final Disposition
Bail application allowed; petitioners released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties; subject to specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Athul G
  • Ashraf M.P
  • Arif M.P

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Thalassery Police Station, Thalassery, Kannur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Cibi Thomas
  • • Ansia K.A.
  • • Aishwarya Shivakumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by accused 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 1662 of 2023 registered with Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, challenging custody in connection with offences punishable under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149. Accused were arrested on 26.12.2023. The prosecution alleges they, along with others forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, restrained the complainant; the first accused allegedly struck the complainant with a sharp weapon, causing injuries. The petitioners contend innocence and have been in judicial custody for about 53 days; investigation is reported to be practically complete with recoveries effected. The 2nd accused has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court (Annexure II). The Public Prosecutor opposes bail claiming risk of witness intimidation and tampering, but concedes the prolonged custody is excessive. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents, including Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v. Raneef, to emphasize presumption of innocence, the general rule that bail is often appropriate, and the need to avoid undue pretrial detention. The court also notes the possibility of recoveries even while on bail as affirmed in Sushila Aggarwal. After careful consideration of facts, the judge concludes that continuous detention is not necessary and grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, appearance, no tampering, passport surrender, and the power to cancel bail for violations, with a caveat for judicial oversight of recoveries.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal CodeArticle 21, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI)
  • Bail is the rule and imprisonment before conviction is the exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.)
  • Delay in trial affecting Article 21 rights (State of Kerala v. Raneef)
  • Recoveries on bail permissible (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend innocence and have been falsely implicated in Crime No. 1662/2023. They have been in judicial custody since 26.12.2023 (about 53 days). The investigation is stated to be practically complete with recoveries effected. They point to the 2nd accused being released on bail (Annexure II) and urge parity and adherence to the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra and Dataram Singh, arguing that detention prior to conviction should not be routine and that their fundamental rights require bail unless substantial grounds exist to deny it. They highlight potential prejudice from prolonged detention and seek bail with standard conditions, or at least on par with the co-accused, while offering to comply with directions and conditions to ensure fair investigation and court process.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the likelihood of intimidation of witnesses and tampering with evidence if the petitioners are released. She conceded the petitioners have remained in custody for 53 days, acknowledging that the 2nd accused has already been granted bail. The prosecution argues that the circumstances and nature of the alleged offences justify keeping them in custody pending investigation, to preserve evidence and witnesses, despite recognizing the need to avoid undue delay in trial.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI[(2012) 1 SCC 40]PositiveSupports 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]PositiveBail is the rule; detention is the exception; discretion must be judicious and compassionate.
State of Kerala v. Raneef[(2011) 1 SCC 784]PositiveUndue detention infringes Article 21 rights; delay in trial matters.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[2020 (1) KHC 663]PositiveAffirms recoveries can be effected while on bail; supports conditions and framework for bail.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1036 OF 2024, High Court 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1036 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1662/2023 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 102/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ``` ``` CRMC 189/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1ATHUL.G, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. KRIPA LALU, KALARI VALAPPIL HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE.P.O, THALASSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670102 2ASHRAF.M.P, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MAKKEENTE PURAYIL HOUSE, CHALIL, MATTAMBRAM, TEMPLE GATE.P.O, THALASSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670102 3ARIF. M.P, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MAKKENTE PURAYIL HOUSE, CHALIL, MATTAMBRAM, TEMPLE GATE.P.O, THALASSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670102 BY ADVS. CIBI THOMAS ANSIA K.A. AISHWARYA SHIVAKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp smt neema t v ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.1662 of 2023 of the Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 26.12.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that on 25.12.2023 at about 6.30 a.m, the accused 1 to 4 along with other identifiable persons, in prosecution of their common object formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and the 1[st] accused hit him on his head with a sharp weapon. It is only because the defacto complainant warded off the attack, he -3- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 sustained a lesser injury on his hand and forehead. If the injury had fallen on the head of the defacto complainant, he would have lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 26.12.2023, which is more than 53 days. The investigation in the case is practically completed and recoveries have been effected. The 2[nd] accused has been released on bail by Annexure II order by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, in Crl.M.C. No.189 of 2024. The -4- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 petitioners are at par with the said accused. Therefore, the petitioners may be also released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Nonetheless she conceded to the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since the last 53 days and the 2[nd] accused has been released on bail by Annexure II order. 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. -5- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 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 under trial 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. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in -6- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 judicial custody since 26.12.2023, and that the 2[nd] accused has already been released on bail by the Court of Session by Annexure II order, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ continuous detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each 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; -7- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 (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 them 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 they are on bail; (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 passport, they 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. -8- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 (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 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** das -9- B.A.No.1036 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1036/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure -ITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN CRL.MC.NO.102/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY Annexure -IITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2024 IN CRL.MC.NO.189/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY ```