Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted; petition allowed with conditions.

Dileesh and others v. Station House Officer, Mukkom Police Station, and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-07-25
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for an equal amount. Conditions include: (i) reporting to the IO every Saturday 9-11 AM until final report; (ii) not inducing or intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iii) not committing any offense while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports, if any, or filing affidavits if none; (v) court may cancel bail for violation; (vi) applications for modification of conditions to be filed in the lower court; (vii) IO may pursue further investigations and recoveries even during bail as allowed by Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition
Bail granted; petition allowed with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dileesh
  • Praveen
  • Prajeesh Kumar
  • Ragesh K
  • Saji @ Sajeesh Kumar
  • Shibu V.P.

Respondents

  • Station House Officer, Mukkom Police Station, Thamarassery, Kozhikode District
  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SHEJI P. ABRAHAM
  • • ABRAHAM JOSEPH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt.Maya M.N., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by six petitioners against the Station House Officer of Mukkom Police Station and the State of Kerala. The Crime No. 342/2024 pertains to offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 149, allegedly committed on 28 May 2024 near Mukkom, Kozhikode. The petitioners were arrested and remanded in custody on 30 May 2024 and have been in judicial custody for about 55 days. The prosecution claims that, in furtherance of a common intention, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons, restrained the de facto complainant, uttered obscene words, and assaulted him, causing grievous injuries and a monetary loss of Rs. 10,000. The petitioners challenge these charges as overbroad or unsupported, asserting innocence and highlighting lack of antecedents; they also argue that investigation is nearly complete and recovery has been effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and risk of tampering with witnesses. The Kerala High Court relies on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and Sushila Aggarwal to emphasize the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule. Ultimately, the court grants bail with conditions, considering the petitioners’ lack of prior offences and the length of custody, while ensuring compliance with investigative needs and public interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI)
  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.)
  • Right to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution; facts and circumstances to be weighed
  • Investigative rights during bail (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are entirely innocent and that there is no material to substantiate the allegations against them. They point out that the Investigating Officer has included Sections 326 and 308 of the IPC to ensure their continued incarceration, despite the near-completion of investigation and the absence of any criminal antecedents. They emphasize that they have already remained in custody for 55 days and stress that bail should be granted as a matter of right under the constitutional scheme, guided by the principles in Sanjay Chandra and Dataram Singh, and the guarantee of Article 21. They contend that the court should exercise compassionate discretion and avoid punishing them before a trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the investigation is ongoing and there exists a real possibility of tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses if the accused are released on bail. The offences alleged are grave and violent, and the petitioners’ admission of common intention further substantiates the risk. The Public Prosecutor contends that granting bail at this stage could undermine the investigation and public order, and emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity of ongoing inquiries. The respondents seek a cautious approach, subject to strict conditions if bail is granted.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI2012 1 SCC 40PositiveCited for presumption of innocence and bail principles; argues against denying bail solely on past conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.[(2018) 3 SCC 22]PositiveCited to emphasize bail as rule and the need for judicious exercise of discretion.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[2020 (1) KHC 663]PositiveCited to support that investigation may proceed and recoveries can be effected even while on 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 Dileesh and others v. Station House Officer, Mukkom Police Station, and 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 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.342/2024 OF Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode ``` ``` ----------------- ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-`** - **`1 DILEESH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SIVADASAN NAIR, COOLIE WORKER KUNNUMMAL HOUSE MALAYAMMA PO, CHATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 602`** - **`2 PRAVEEN, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. CHOYI, DRIVER, VAPPATTU HOUSE MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 602`** - **`3 PRAJEESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN COOLIE PUTHIYATHODUKAYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 602`** - **`4 RAGESH K, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN COOLIE KEEZHTHANINGATT HOUSE MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 602`** - **`5 SAJI @ SAJEESH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN COOLIE PUTHIYATHODUKAYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 602`** - **`6 SHIBU V.P., AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KANDAN , COOLIE VAZHAKKATTUPOYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 602`** ``` BY ADVS. SHEJI P.ABRAHAM ABRAHAM JOSEPH ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :-`** - **`1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUKKOM POLICE STATION THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKDE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 573`** - **`2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 BY SMT.MAYA M.N., 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. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` ## **O R D E R Dated this the 25th day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the accused 1 to 6 in Crime No.342/2024 of the Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against them, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.05.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 28.05.2024, at around 20:45 hrs., the accused 1 to 6, in prosecution of their common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and uttered obscene words against him. Subsequently, the accused hit the de facto complainant and he suffered grievous injuries including a fracture of his rib. He also suffered a loss of ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Sheji P. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sections 326 and 308 of the IPC to see that the petitioners are incarcerated. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioners have committed the above offences. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that; the petitioners, in prosecution of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him and caused grievous injuries to him. He also suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/-. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Further, I find that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra** v. **CBI** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh** v. **State of U.P.** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. 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 petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 55 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to conditions. 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 on - Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. 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; ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` - (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 have no they - passports, they shall file affidavits 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 conditions shall be filed and entertained before 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` 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** Jvt/25.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5859 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 10 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5859/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure 1ORDER DATED 04-07-2024 IN CRMC 1140/2024 ON ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - VI, KOZHIKODE Annexure A2ORDER DTD 13.06.2024 IN C. M.P NO. 1561/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, THAMARASSERY ```