High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-01Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent ...

Bail Application No. 382 of 2024 (Crime No. 4/2024 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam) v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO.382 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 bail application is allowed. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are to be released on bail on executing a separate bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for a like sum. They must appear before the investigating officer every Saturday for two months or until the final report is laid, whichever is earlier, and must not threaten or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. They shall not commit any offense while on bail and must surrender any passports. Any violation permits cancellation of bail or modification of conditions. The Investigating Officer may continue requisite investigations and take recoveries, as permitted by law, including on information furnished by the petitioners, echoing the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions; accused to be released on bond and subject to reporting and other safeguards.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nousher
Shaji
Kunjamon
Shabeer
Anvar

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer, Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.Siju Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by five accused in Crime No. 4/2024 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, charged with offences including sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The incident, alleged to have occurred in the early hours of 01.01.2024 during New Year celebrations, involved the accused allegedly attacking the defacto-complainant and his friends with iron rods/pipes, in furtherance of a common intention to commit murder. The petitioners were arrested on 01.01.2024 and have been in judicial custody for over 30 days. The prosecution claims grievous injuries to several victims, including a subdural hemorrhage and fractures, and contends that bail could lead to witness intimidation and tampering. The petitioners contend their innocence, allege a false FIR, and point out lack of criminal antecedents; they also submit the investigation is practically complete and they are prepared to abide by stringent conditions. During proceedings, wound certificates and treatment records were examined, with some doubts raised about the severity of injuries, and the court directed production of records. Ultimately, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, noting the investigation is near completion, recovery has been effected, and that the petitioners have no antecedents. The order relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal to justify imposing conditions as part of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 307 r/w 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused are innocent and that the FIR contains Section 307 to deny bail. They contend no criminal antecedents exist, investigation is practically complete, and detention since 01.01.2024 is excessive. They are willing to comply with stringent conditions and have offered to abide by any safeguards. They request bail with conditions to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring proper investigation and presence before authorities. The petitioners emphasize that not all injuries are grievous, and that bond, appearance, and restrictions will prevent any interference with witnesses or evidence. They rely on established principles that bail can be granted with conditions, even in serious cases, to balance liberty with the needs of a fair investigation; and they urge the court to exercise its discretion to prevent unnecessary pre-trial detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that the accused inflicted grievous injuries on multiple persons, including a subdural hemorrhage and fractures, and that there is real risk of witness intimidation and tampering if released. The severity of the injuries and the history of the case justify denying bail, particularly given the early hours and common-intention dynamics. The prosecution maintained that the investigation is ongoing and that the petitioners’ release could jeopardize the collection of evidence and the safety of witnesses. They urged the court to deny bail or impose cautious conditions if bail is granted, to ensure that the rights of the complainants are protected and that justice is not compromised by premature release.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that courts may impose conditions on bail and that investigations can proceed with safeguards; supports the order’s conditioning of 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. 382 of 2024 (Crime No. 4/2024 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam) 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. 382 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.4/2024 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 70/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST** **CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** - **1 NOUSHER, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM, NOUFAL MANZIL, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690519** - **2 SHAJI, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, KATTOOR THEKKATHIL, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519** - **3 KUNJUMON, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, ANAKARAN VEEDU, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519** - **4 SHABEER, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.ASHRAF, KOLLITHARA THEKKATHIL, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519** - **5 ANVAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.ASHRAF, KOLLITHARA THEKKATHIL, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519** **BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 5 in crime No.4/2024 of the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 323, 324 and 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 01.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 00.30 hours on 01.01.2024 the first accused attempted to hit the defacto-complainant and his friends who were celebrating the new year. The accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of the defactocomplainant and his friends, the second accused hit the defacto-complainant on the right side of his head with an iron pipe and caused hurt to him. When the friend of the defacto-complainant named Renjith attempted to resist the accused, the third accused hit him on the left side of the head with an iron pipe and caused hurt to him. Again, when another friend of the defacto-complainant named Sudhi also **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 3** attempted to interfere, the second accused hit him on the right side of his forehead with an iron pipe and caused hurt to him. Thereafter, when a person named Abhijith attempted to interfere, the fourth accused hit him on his left hand with an iron rod and caused hurt to him. Accordingly, the accused 1 to 5 beat and hit the defacto-complainant and his friends and caused hurt to them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. K.Siju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. In fact, it was the defactocomplainant and his friends who attacked the petitioners on the new year day. Section 307 of IPC has been deliberately incorporated in the FIR to deny bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 4** 01.01.2024, which is more than 30 days. The petitioners' continued detention is unnecessary. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioners have caused grievous injuries to the defacto-complainant and his friends. In fact, the injured named Dhanesh had sustained a subdural hemorrhage and a fracture on the left temporoparietal bone. Similarly, an injured named Abhijith also sustained a fracture on the third metacarpal. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that on the early morning of 01.01.2024, the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the defacto-complainant and his friends with iron rods. In the incident, five persons namely, Dhanesh, Ranjith Kumar, Sudhi, Rajesh and Abhijith were **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 5** injured. 7. When the bail application came up for consideration on 22.01.2024, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the wound certificates and treatment records of the injured. Subsequently, when the bail application came up on 31.01.2024, the wound certificates of the five injured were handed over. On a perusal of the wound certificates of Dhanesh, Ranjith Kumar, Sudhi and Rajesh, no serious injuries were noticed. However, in the wound certificate of Abhijith, it was shown that the injured had sustained a fracture on the 3[rd] metacarpal. On finding that the noting was made on the left side of the wound certificate after the other injuries were noted, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to produce the treatment records of Abhijith to ascertain as to whether the said injured had suffered a fracture. Even though the investigating officer is present before this Court, the treatment records of the Abhijith is not made available. Instead, the treatment records of the person named Dhanesh is made available. 8. On an appreciation of the materials now placed on **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 6** record and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 01.01.2024, which is more than 30 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioners continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, they are entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on their executing a separate 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 Officer on Investigating every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 7** - (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 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 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; - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail **BAIL APPL.NO.382 OF 2024 8** 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 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/-** **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **shg**