Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted/ Petitions allowed

Bail applications in Crime No. 86/2024 and 87/2024, Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 638 OF 2024; BAIl APPL. NO. 952 OF 2024; BAIl APPL. NO. 1147 OF 2024; BAIl APPL. NO. 1148 OF 2024; BAIl APPL. NO. 1534 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date
2024-04-04
Court Decision / Holding
The petitions are allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on the following conditions: (i) surrender before the IO within ten days for interrogation and two days for weapon recovery; (ii) on production, the jurisdictional court shall release them on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with two sureties of like amount; (iii) petitioners shall cooperate with investigation and be available for directed interrogation; (iv) petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with investigation; (v) petitioners shall not commit any offence during the bail period, with any such involvement constituting a ground for cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted/ Petitions allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • DEEPU S.
  • RON MATHAI CHERIAN
  • BIBIN ALEXANDER
  • LIGIN JOHN
  • BINU BABU @ BINEESH BABU

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Pooyappally Police Station (Crime No. 87/2024)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.RAJEEV
  • • V.VINAY
  • • M.S.ANEER
  • • PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
  • • ANILKUMAR C.R.
  • • K.S.KRISHNAKUMAR
  • • GEO PAUL
  • • JACOB GEORGE PALLATH
  • • B.N.HASKAR
  • • B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Renjith George (Sr. P.P.)
  • • M.P. Prashanth (P.P.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are five connected bail petitions (B.A. Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 and 1534 of 2024) arising from Crime Nos. 86/2024 and 87/2024 of Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, before Justice A. Badharudeen. The petitioners—DEEPU S., RON MATHAI CHERIAN, BIBIN ALEXANDER, LIGIN JOHN, and BINU BABU (alias BINEESH BABU)—seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, alleging involvement in offences including criminal intimidation, assault, attempted murder, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The State contends that the crimes involve a serious clash between parties, with violence affecting the complainant and family near Panayam, and a counter-claim by the defacto complainant in Crime 86/2024 that the petitioners attacked them. The common order notes both crimes stem from the same occurrence; prima facie, the prosecution’s case is made, but the truth will emerge at trial. The court recognizes the need for an effective investigation and the petitioners’ cooperation, and while opposing bail, the Public Prosecutor acknowledges the interconnected nature of the cases. The judge ultimately enlarges the petitioners on bail subject to stringent conditions: surrender within ten days for interrogation, two days of questioning, weapon recovery if any, production before the jurisdictional court on arrest, bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, and compliance with non-interference and non-offence conditions during the bail period.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 325, 354, 427, 308 read with 149

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the accused are innocent of the allegations, fully cooperative, and willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer (IO). They submitted that bail will not frustrate the investigation; rather, it will ensure their presence for interrogation and enable weapon recovery if any. They argued that the cases arise from a single occurrence and that the petitioners should not be denied liberty when the investigation requires only the IO’s scrutiny, especially given that the offences are not yet proved and may be mitigated by trial evidence. They urged the court to grant pre-arrest bail with reasonable conditions to safeguard the investigation and avoid unnecessary detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the offences are serious and involve a violent clash between groups, potentially endangering witnesses and public order. He highlighted the interconnected nature of Crime Nos. 86/2024 and 87/2024 and the need to prevent possible interference with the investigation. He urged stringent conditions if bail is granted to ensure the accused’s appearance before the IO and to prevent repetition of offences. He stressed that the truth of allegations would be determined at trial and that early release should not hinder the prosecution’s case.

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 applications in Crime No. 86/2024 and 87/2024, Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, 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 A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 638 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.87/2024 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` DEEPU S. , AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, MYLODU P.O., POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691506 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KRISHNAKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION,(CRIME NO.87/2024 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PIN - 691537`** ## **`SR PP - RENJITH GEORGE,PP M P PRASHANTH`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 952 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.86/2024 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` RON MATHAI CHERIAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O MATHAI CHERIAN, VILAPPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, POOYAPALLY P.O, PIN - 691537 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GEO PAUL JACOB GEORGE PALLATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1147 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.86/2024 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` IN CRMC NO.154 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** ``` BIBIN ALEXANDER, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. ALEXANDER, KOLLAKARAN VEEDU, POOYAPPALLY, KIZHAKU BHAGAM, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691537 BY ADVS. B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1148 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.86/2024 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IDENTIFIABLE):`** ``` LIGIN JOHN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. M. JOHN, ALUVILA VEEDU, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691537 BY ADVS. B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1534 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.86/2024 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:`** ``` BINU BABU @ BINEESH BABU, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. BABU. Y, KUROMVILA VEEDU, POOYAPPALLY P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691537 BY ADVS. B.N.HASKAR B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, ALONG WITH THE CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2023** Bail application Nos. 1147, 1534, 1148 and 952 of 2024 have been filed seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively in crime No. 86/2024 of Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 325, 354, 427, 308 read with 149 of IPC. 2. Bail application No.638 of 2024 is filed seeking prearrest bail in Crime No.87/2024 Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, by the 1[st] accused, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 307 read with 149 of IPC. The 1[st] accused in this crime is the defacto complainant in Crime No.86/2024 of Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam. 2. Heard the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant documents. 3. The prosecution case in Crime No.86/2024 is that, at ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 7 ``` about 15.00 hours on 21.01.2024, the accused herein wrongfully restrained, assaulted and brutally manhandled the defacto complainant and his family members near Panayam, with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thereafter, counter case was registered as Crime No.87/2024, wherein the allegation of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant in Crime No.86/2024 along with some identifiable persons similarly attacked the accused in the said crime, with intention to commit murder, after wrongfully restraining and assaulting him. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused. 4. Respective counsel appearing for the petitioners argued at length to substantiate innocence of the petitioners. They offered co-operation in the matter of investigation. Accordingly, the learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to concede the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation and they may be released on bail. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the petitioners and he has placed the records forming part of the case diary to substantiate attack and counter attack ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## in between the petitioners. 6. Thus, case and the counter are involved in the same occurrence. Prima facie, the prosecution case is made out in both the crimes, but the truth of the allegations is a matter of evidence during trial. At the same time, effective investigation shall be ensured securing the petitioners’ presence before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, by imposing conditions, with direction to the petitioners to subject themselves for interrogation before the Investigating Officer and for recovery of weapon, if any, for two days between 10.00 am to 04.00 pm, for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, these petitions stand allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on conditions: i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioners for two days in between 10.00 am to 04.00 pm and recover the weapon/s, if any, during the deemed custody. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners ``` B.A.Nos. 638, 952, 1147, 1148 & 1534 of 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself. ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each for themselves and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court. iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. iv. The petitioners, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. ## **Sd/-** ## **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** SK