BAIL APPL. NOS. 2332/2024, 2342/2024 & 2344/2024 (Liju L; Yadav S; Devanarayanan S) v. State of Kerala & Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2332 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.0138/2024 OF Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 LIJU L AGED 22 YEARS GIRIRAJACHIRA, KOTTARAVALAVU, THOTTAPPALLY PO, PURAKKAD PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561`** - **`2 BINIL A AGED 23 YEARS S/O. ANILKUMAR, BINIL BHAVAN, KARUVATTA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690517`** - **`3 ANANDU UDAYAPPAN AGED 23 YEARS S/O. UDAYAPPAN, GIRIRAJACHIRA, KOTTARAVALAVU, THOTTAPPALLY PO, PURAKKAD PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561`** ``` BY ADVS. M.G.SREEJITH VIDYAJITH M. BINCY JOSE ROJIN DEVASSY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRIKKUNNAPUZHA , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561`** ``` BY SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 09.04.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2342/2024, 2344/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:2:- # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2342 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.0138/2024 OF Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, ``` ## **`Alappuzha`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` YADAV S AGED 23 YEARS , S/O., SUBASH RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL, KARUVATTA POST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690517 ``` ``` BY ADV ARUN CHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ INVESTIGATING OFFICER CRIME NO: 0138/ 2024, THRIKKUNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690515 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2332/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:3:- # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2344 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.0138/2024 OF Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, ``` ## **`Alappuzha`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` DEVANARAYANAN S AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SIVATMAJAN, KAUSTHUBHAM, KOTTARAVALAVU, THOTTAPALLY, PURAKKAD PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561 BY ADVS. M.G.SREEJITH VIDYAJITH M. BINCY JOSE ROJIN DEVASSY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRIKKUNNAPUZHA , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 09.04.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2332/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:4:- ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2024 These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for orders of prearrest bail. B.A.No.2342/2024 is filed by the first accused, B.A.No.2344/2024 is filed by the fourth accused, and B.A.No.2332/2024 is filed by the accused 8, 9, and 10 in Crime No.138/2024 of the Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (25 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, and 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the petitioners in the above three applications are accused in the same crime, the applications are consolidated, jointly heard, and being disposed of by this common order. ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 ## -:5:- 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 25.02.2024, at around 22.30 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, and out of their previous animosity towards the defacto complainant and his friends, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, hurled abusive words at the defacto complainant and his friends, and the fourth accused hit the defacto complainant on his rib cage and caused grievous injuries to him. The other accused also beat the defacto complainant on different parts of his body with wooden sticks and caused injuries to him. The accused reached the scene of occurrence in a car owned by the first accused and also on a motorcycle without number boards. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A. 2342/2024, Sri. M.G.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [24 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** practitioners in B.A.Nos. 2332 & 2344 of 2024 and Smt.Seetha.S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the first accused submitted that there is no overt act alleged against the first accused. The only allegation alleged against the first accused is that the accused had reached the scene of occurrence in a car that belonging to the first accused. It was the fourth accused who assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused grievous injuries to him. Therefore, the offence under Section 326, which is the only non-bailable offence, will not be attracted against the first accused. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the first accused is not necessary. Hence, he is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in B.A.No.2332 & 2344 of 2024 submitted that a reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate the falsity and ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 ## -:7:- frivolity in the accusations levelled against the petitioners. The offence under Section 326 will not be attracted to the facts of the case. In fact, the petitioners have not even been named in the FIR, which by itself shows the falsity in the crime. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Moreover, on the very same set of allegations, a subsequent FIR has been registered by the very same police, which again proves the frivolity in the accusations. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that, in the CC TV footages that were seen by the Investigating Officer, he has identified the accused and their involvement in the crime. The accused reached the scene of occurrence in a car owned by the first accused. ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [24 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** It also stated that the first accused is an active goonda, and all the other accused are his friends. There are several cases registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer has identified 10 accused. It was the fourth accused who attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused contusions and aberrations to him. The fourth accused is also involved in another crime of very same police station. Similarly, the eight accused has already been arrested on 20.03.2024 and has been remanded to judicial custody. The investigation in the case is in progress. The weapons as well as the vehicles have to be recovered. If the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would adversely affect the investigation. Also, the accused may intimidate the witness and tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an evaluation of Annexure A1 FIR as well as the materials placed on record, including the bail ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [24 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** objection report filed by the Investigating Officer, it is prima facie unveiled that the fourth accused had used an iron rod and inflicted the grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. The allegation against the first accused is that the accused went to the scene of occurrence in a car owned by him. Indisputably, the eight accused has been arrested on 20.03.2024. The allegations against the accused 9 and 10 are that they also assaulted the defacto complainant and his friends. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and on prima facie appreciating the fact that the specific overt act to attract the offence under Section 326 is attributed only against the fourth accused, and merely because the accused reached the scene of occurrence in a car owned by the first accused and the accused 9 and 10 had assaulted the defacto complainant and his friends, the only non-bailable ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 ## -:10:- offence 326 will not be attracted. Therefore, I am satisfied that the offence under Section 326 may not be attracted against the accused 1, 9, and 10. Hence, I hold that the said accused are entitled to orders of pre-arrest bail. However, since there is a specific overt act alleged against the fourth accused, that he assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused injuries to him, I am convinced that the fourth accused has not made out any exceptional ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I am not inclined to allow B.A.No.2344/2024 and also, the application filed by the eight accused, who has already been arrested. In the result; 1) B.A.No.2344/2024 filed by the fourth accused and B.A.No.2332/2024 filed by the eight accused are dismissed. 2) B.A.No.2342/2024 filed by the first accused and ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [32 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.2332/2024 filed by the accused 9 and 10 are allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The accused 1, 9 and 10 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the arrest of the accused 1, 9 and 10, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the accused 1, 9 and 10 on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The accused 1, 9 and 10 shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer; v). The accused 1, 9 and 10 shall not intimidate witnesses ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [32 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vi). The accused 1, 9 and 10 shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (vii) The accused 1, 9 and 10 shall not get involved in any other 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, B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 **==> picture [32 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** given by the accused 1, 9 and 10 even while the accused 1, 9 and 10 are 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].** (xi) Any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the applications and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merit of the case to be directed by the Jurisdictional Court(s). Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/09.04.24 ## B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:14:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2342/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure I ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AT THRIKKUNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT AS FIR NO. 0138 OF 2024 DATED 03.03.2024 ``` B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:15:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2344/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.0138/2024 DATED 03-03-2024 ``` B.A.Nos.2332, 2342 & 2344 of 2024 -:16:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2332/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.0138/2024 DATED 03-03-2024 ```