High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-14Bail application allowed; petitioners released ...

Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024

Case / Petition Number:Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the bail application, directing release on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount, and imposed conditions including periodic appearance before the IO, prohibition on inducement or tampering with evidence, prohibition on committing offences while on bail, surrender of passports, provision of present and permanent addresses and mobile number, and powers to cancel or modify bail for violations; IO may continue investigations and take necessary recoveries under the guidance of Supreme Court authority cited (Sushila Aggarwal).
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed; petitioners released on bail with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed
Ismayil

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi
Anas U.S, S/O. Hydrose
Rafee K.U, S/O. UMMAR K.M

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Athul Poulose
• C.S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by Muhammed and Ismayil in Crime No.75/2024 of Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences under sections 341, 324 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. Accused were arrested on 5 February 2024. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 3 February 2024, in furtherance of their common intention, the petitioners pelted granite stones at the de facto complainant and his friend, with the first accused stabbing the complainant twice with a knife and injuring him, while the friend was injured by a stab in the back; the second accused allegedly struck the friend with a sword. The petitioners contend innocence, false implicaction, and that section 307 was added without substance; they also point to a genuine settlement with respondents 2 and 3 and the absence of objection to bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting ongoing investigation and grievous injuries, but acknowledged the petitioners’ custody since 5 February 2024 and recovery already effected. The respondents 2 and 3 support settlement and have no objection to bail. The court, taking into account the nearly complete investigation, resolve to grant bail with bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions including periodic appearance, non-inducement, no offense while on bail, surrender of passport, and reporting obligations, while citing a Supreme Court principle that investigation and recoveries may continue even on bail (Sushila Aggarwal).

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 439 CrPCSec. 341 IPCSec. 324 IPCSec. 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that they are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated; the inclusion of Sec. 307 IPC is unwarranted and without substance, aimed at denying bail. They highlighted that the dispute with respondents 2 and 3 has been settled amicably out of court and that the respondents have no objection to their release on bail. They emphasized that they have been in judicial custody since 5 February 2024, that investigation is substantially complete, and that recoveries have been effected. Hence, continued detention is unnecessary and bail should be granted with reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the investigation is in progress and that the petitioners caused grievous injuries. Nevertheless, the Public Prosecutor conceded that the petitioners have been in custody since 5 February 2024 and that recoveries have been effected. He also noted the amicable settlement between the parties and the respondents’ lack of objection to bail in light of the settlement, with the intention of quashing the proceedings. The State opposed an unconditioned bail but did not object to bail on suitable terms, given the settlement and circumstances. Any order must balance public safety with the settlement’s aims and ensure proper monitoring during bail.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited as authority allowing the Investigating Officer to continue investigation and effect recoveries while a bail order is in force; used to justify investigations during 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 Application No. 1420 of 2024 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1420 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.75/2024 OF Varandarappally Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 MUHAMMED,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.CHEKKU, KALLAKKUTHODI HOUSE, 907, TEMPLE DESOM, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680303`** - **`2 ISMAYIL,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.KOYA, UMMATHUR HOUSE,POUND DESOM, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680303`** ``` BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ANAS U.S,S/O.HYDROSE, UMMATHOOR HOUSE, JUMA MASJID MURIKKUNGAL DESOM, MURIKUNGAL P.O, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 IN CRL MA.2/2024.`** - **`3 RAFEEK K.U ,S/O.UMMAR K.M, KALATHINGALTHODI HOUSE, PATHUKULANGARA, MAIDANAM DESOM, MURIKUNGAL P.O, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 IN CRL MA.2/2024.`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` ATHUL POULOSE-R2 AND R3 ``` ``` Sr PP Sri C.S Hrithwik ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** **Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 ----------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 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.75/2024 of the Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, registered against them , for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 5.2.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 3.2.2024 at around 23.00 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, threw granite stones at the de 3 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 facto complainant and his friend Refeek and the first accused stabbed the de facto complainant on his back twice with a knife and his friend on his back below the shoulder with the same knife. Then, the second accused hit the friend of the de facto complainant on his left hand by using a sword. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Athul Poulose, the learned counsel apeparing for the respondents 2 and 3/injured. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in 4 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.307 of the IPC without any substance or basis with a sole intention to deny bail to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the subject-matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3/injured has been amicably settled out of Court and the respondents have stated that they have no objection in the petitioners being enlarged on bail. Moreover, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case 5 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 is in progress. The petitioners have caused grievous injuries to the injured. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2024 and that recovery has been effected. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 also submitted that the said respondents have no objection in the petitioners being enlarged on bail because the dispute between the parties has been settled. They propose to take appropriate steps to get the proceedings quashed. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, 6 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 that the recovery has been effected and further that the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 have arrived at a genuine settlement, which would augur harmony in the society, I am of the view that the petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. 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 them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 7 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 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 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 passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to 8 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) The petitioners shall furnish their present address and permanent address, and their mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. 9 Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 (viii) 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 petitioners even while the petitioners 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].** SD/- sks/14.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**