FAMEER v. STATE OF KERALA and THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-01-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Fameer is to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any; (v) furnish present and permanent addresses and mobile number; (vi) court may cancel bail on violation; (vii) applications to modify bail conditions may be moved; (viii) the IO may investigate and effect recoveries even while on bail, in line with Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted; petition allowed with conditions as stated above; investigation can proceed during bail as per cited doctrine.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- FAMEER
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA
- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKEKAD, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • E. C. Ahamed Fazil
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Neema T.V.
Case Synopsis & Summary
Fameer, the fourth accused in Crime No. 821/2023 of Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The case arises from an incident around 3:30 a.m. on 17 August 2023, in which the complainant and the injured Faiz were travelling in an autorickshaw when the accused allegedly followed on a scooter, restrained the complainant, and the first accused repeatedly attacked Faiz with a sword, causing grievous injuries. The charges include sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 509(ii), and 307 read with 149 IPC. The petitioner, the fourth accused, was arrested on 4 November 2023 and has remained in judicial custody since then; the prosecution contends the offences were committed by a common plan with the first accused, while the defense asserts false implication and notes there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The investigation is described as practically complete, and recovery has been effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but contends there is no overt act against the petitioner. The court, after considering the materials, finds no specific overt act against the petitioner, his detention for 67 days is unnecessary, and, in view of the absence of antecedents, grants bail on a Rs.50,000/- bond with two sureties, under conditions including weekly appearances before the IO, restrictions on tampering with witnesses, no commission of offences, passport surrender, furnishing address details, and the court’s power to cancel bail for violations, while noting the principle of allowing investigation during bail as per Sushila Aggarwal (Supreme Court) cited in 2020 (1) KHC 663.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Applicant contends false implication, points to absence of a specific overt act against the petitioner in the FIR, and notes he has been in judicial custody since 04.11.2023 with the investigation practically complete; he is willing to abide by conditions and seeks release on bail.
Contentions of Respondents
Public Prosecutor submits that, although there is no explicit overt act against the petitioner, he aided the first accused and the injury to Faiz was grievous; investigation is complete and recovery effected; while bail may be warranted, the court must assess risk and public interest.
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 for the principle that investigation and recoveries may continue during bail, aligning with Supreme Court guidance referenced by the Kerala High Court. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 FAMEER v. STATE OF KERALA and THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.