High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartly Granted: Anticipatory bail granted to al...

BAIL APPL. NOS. 4926 & 4931 OF 2022, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Case / Petition Number:BA 4926 of 2022; BA 4931 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Viju Abraham
Judgment Date
2022-07-13
Court Decision / Holding
Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners except the 1st petitioner in both B.A.s; Petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer on 20.07.2022; If arrested, they shall be released on bail on conditions including bond, two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, cooperation, non-tampering, no witness inducement, and no new crimes; Police empowered to investigate and recover, even if petitioners are on bail, in light of Sushila Aggarwal; Bail cancellation possible on violation.
Final Disposition
Partly Granted: Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners except the 1st petitioner in each case; 1st petitioner denied bail; Surrender date specified; Standard bail conditions; Police can proceed with investigation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Thyagarajan
  • Nishant
  • Baiju
  • Jishnu
  • Suresh
  • Sujith
  • Shaji B
  • Shine
  • Jayakrishnan
  • Vishnu M
  • Mahesh U
  • Vinod U.S.
  • Vineeth U S
  • Adarsh V
  • Akhil Chandran
  • Rajeesh M
  • Sandeep
  • A. Ratheesh
  • Manoj A

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
  • STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shakthi Prakash
  • • K. Dhruv Kumar
  • • Harikrishnan M.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. M.C. Ashi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two anticipatory bail applications were heard by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 13 July 2022 in relation to Crime Nos. 894 and 895 of 2022 at Puthoor Police Station. Bail Applications Nos. 4926 of 2022 (petitioners 1–7) and 4931 of 2022 (petitioners 3–13) involve offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506 read with S.149. Prosecution alleges that the petitioners assaulted and restrained the complainants during an agitation linked to a quarry dispute; 1st accused in each case is alleged to have committed serious overt acts (hitting on the head with an iron rod; in 4931, an attack with a sword). The petitioners contend they are drivers, the quarriess had recently reopened, that they are the breadwinners, and that their protests were peaceful. The Public Prosecutor urged denial of bail for the 1st petitioner, while some others should receive pre-arrest bail. After hearing, the court declined bail for the 1st petitioner in both cases but granted anticipatory bail to all other petitioners, with surrender by 20 July 2022 and standard conditions (bond, presence, cooperation, non-tampering, no inducement, and no new crime). It also clarified police power to investigate even when on bail, citing the Supreme Court decision in Sushila Aggarwal. The order reflects a careful balance between public order and individual liberty.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 294(b)IPC Section 341IPC Section 323IPC Section 324IPC Section 326IPC Section 308IPC Section 506 read with S.149

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, arguing that they are law-abiding drivers and breadwinners and that their protests regarding quarry passes were peaceful and did not pose a risk of tampering with evidence. They contended that there is no immediate likelihood of fleeing from justice, and that a grant of anticipatory bail with conditions would suffice, while the 1st petitioner’s acts are alleged to be limited to specific incidents already noted in the FIRs.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners face serious allegations including overt acts by the 1st petitioner in both crimes (hitting with an iron rod in BA 4926 and attacking with a sword in BA 4931), warranting denial of bail for the 1st petitioner. It was argued that the nature of the offences, the risk to public order, and the potential to influence witnesses justify keeping the first petitioner in custody, while suggesting pre-arrest bail for the remaining petitioners as a balanced approach.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to support that police power to investigate and effect recoveries can operate even when accused are on bail; used to justify bail conditions and ongoing investigations.

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. NOS. 4926 & 4931 OF 2022, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 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 VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 4926 OF 2022** ## **CRIME NO.895 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATITION** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:** 1 THYAGARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O. SUKUMARAN,NANDANAM, KOTTATHALA P.O.,KOLLAM, PIN - 691566 2 NISHANT, AGED 34 YEARS,S/O. PUSHPANGADAN, NISHANTH BHAVAN KOTTATHALA, PIN - 691566 3 BAIJU, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O. ANANDASAGARAN BAIJU BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, PIN - 691566 4 JISHNU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ANIL KUMAR KAMBIKKATTUVADAKKATHIL, VENDAR P.O., PIN - 691507 5 SURESH, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O. SUKUMARAN CHARYAYIL VEEDU, VENAR P.O., PIN - 691507 6 SUJITH, AGED 36 YEARS,S/O. VASUDEVAN SUJITH BHAVAN, VENDAR P.O.,KOLLAM, PIN - 691507 7 SHAJI B, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O. BHASKARAN KIZHAKKEPARAYANKAALA, VENDAR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691507 BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH K.DHRUV KUMAR HARIKRISHNAN M.S. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 2** 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.PP - SMT. SEETHA S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4931/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.894 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,3 TO 13:** 1 SHINE, AGED 39 YEARS,S/O SASIDHARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHARATH BHAVAN, THEVALAPPURAM, PUTHOOR .P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT -691507., PIN - 691507 2 JAYAKRISHNAN,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O HARISUTHAN PILLAI, AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT VATHIYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU – 690540 PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690540 3 VISHNU M @ KOCHIKKA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANIMANDIRAM, PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690540 4 MAHESH U, AGED 21 YEARS S/O UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKEPLATHARA VEEDU, IVERKALA,PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507 5 VINOD U.S, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O UNNIKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507 6 VINEETH U S, AGED 33 YEARS,UNNIKRISHNA KURUP AGED 33 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL,IVERKALA,PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507 ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 4** |7|ADARSH V, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O VINOD,| |---|---| ||AGED 28 YEARS RESIDING AT PALAKKOTTU,| ||IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507| |8|AKHIL CHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI| ||AGED 29 YEARS RESIDING AT ARUN NIVAS,| ||PUTHANAMBALM P.O,KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN| ||- 690540| |9|RAJEESH M @ REJI, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O MURALEEDHARAN| ||PILLAI,AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT PLATHARA| ||MELETHIL,IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN| ||- 691507| |10|SANDEEP,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O SATHEESAN NAIR, AGED 32| ||YEARS, RESIDING AT UTHRATTATHI,| ||IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507| |11|A. RATHEESH @ MATHAN,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O AANANDAN| ||AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NANDYATTU VEEDU,| ||KUNNATHUR EAST , KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690540| |12|MANOJ A, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O AANANDAN, AGED 40| ||YEARS, RESIDING AT ROHINI HOUSE, AMBALATHUM| ||BHAGOM, PORUVAZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -| ||690520| ||BY ADVS.| ||K.R.RAJKUMAR| ||JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN| ||RAHUL RAJ| ||CHRISTY MARIA| ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 5** PP - SRI. M.C.ASHI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4926/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 6** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** **------------------B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 ---------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2022** ## **ORDER** Applications for anticipatory bail. 2. B.A.No.4926 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners 1 to 7 in Crime No.895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 r/w S.149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners wrongfully retrained the defacto complainant and others and assaulted them and it is alleged that the 1[st] accused hit on the head of the defacto complainant using iron rod and the 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused restrained the defacto complainant and the accused Nos.2 to 6 fisted and kicked the defacto complainant and his friend and thereby committed the above offence. The motive alleged ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 7** behind the assault is a dispute relating to transportation of granite from a quarry. 4. B.A.No.4931 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners 3 to 13 in Crime No.894 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 r/w S.149 of IPC. 5. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners are drivers having valid licenses and they are the sole breadwinners of their families. It is submitted that the quarries were closed for a long. The quarry at Chaprayil rock quarry started functioning on 15.6.2022 onwards. The Passes were issued to some of the Local drivers who are with the ruling party only. The petitioners were not issued with passes. Therefore, petitioners among others peacefully agitated against this on 22.6.2022. While petitioners were peacefully staging dharna, the locals lead by Grama Panchayat Member Thyagarajan and his henchmen attacked the ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 8** agitators including petitioners and petitioners sustained major injuries and a crime has been registered against the culprits. The petitioners were manhandled and injured in the incident and a crime has been registered against them. The above two crimes are registered in connection with the same incident. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that serious overt act is alleged against the 1[st] petitioner in both the cases, i.e the 1[st] petitioner in B.A.No.4926 of 2022 the 1[st] accused hit on the defacto complainant using iron rod and where as 1[st] petitioner in B.A.No.4931 of 2022 attacked using a sword and inflicted severe injuries to the defacto complainant therein. Taking into consideration the serious overt acts alleged against the 1[st] petitioner in both the bail applications, I am not inclined to grant bail to them, but I am of the ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 9** opinion that all other petitioners in both the bail applications are entitled for pre-arrest bail. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, the above bail applications are disposed of with the following directions. All the petitioners in both the bail applications except 1[st] petitioner in both the bail applications are granted anticipatory bail. The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 20.07.2022. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime Nos.894 of 2022 & 895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station except the 1[st] petitioner in both the bail applications, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions: _(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;_ _(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the_ ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 10** _investigating officer in Crime Nos.894/2022 & 895/2022 of Puthoor Police Station as and when summoned to do so; (iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;_ _(iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence;_ _(v) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;_ _(vi) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail._ If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer in Crime Nos.894/2022 & 895/2022 of Puthoor Police Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by any of the petitioners even when ## **B.A. Nos. 4926 & 4931 of 2022 11** the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC**_ _**663)**_ . sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE** pm