Chandu v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1169/2024 OF Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha ``` ``` -------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :-`** ``` CHANDU, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, VADAKODI, CMC-7, VARANADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 533 ``` ``` BY ADVS. C.Y.VINOD KUMAR C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & INVESTIGATING OFFICER :-`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, NH 47, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 524 BY SMT.NEEMA T.V., SR.PP`** ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 25.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 25th day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.1169/2024 of the Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused (four in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 29.05.2024, at around 21:15 hrs., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, and the first accused hit the de facto complainant on his face and he suffered a nasal bone fracture. The accused 2 to 4 manhandled the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the second ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` accused hit the de facto complainant with a helmet. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the FIR would show that the specific overt act of causing grievous injury is attributed against the first accused. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was at the place of occurrence and he wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` the crime. The petitioner had also restrained the de facto complainant and hit him with a helmet. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that; he along with the other accused had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and the first accused hit the de facto complainant with a helmet, and he suffered nasal bone fracture. The medical records _prima facie_ corroborate the said allegation. Nonetheless, the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused. Whether the petitioner had also assaulted the de facto complainant is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. 8. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the specific overt act of causing nasal bone fracture is attributed against the first accused and the allegation ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` against the petitioner and the other accused is that they assisted the first accused in committing the above offences, I am of the firm view that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to conditions. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions :- - (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; - (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` - (iv) The petitioner 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; - (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before said court within the said period; - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; - (vii) 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. - (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is 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]. (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. **Sd/C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** Jvt/26.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5576 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5576/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- ``` ``` Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1169/24 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/6/24 IN CRL MC NO. 147/24 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ```