High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted

Febin Shahabas v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Peruvannamuzhi Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1715 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-21
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any; (v) court may cancel/modify bail for violations; (vi) Investigating Officer may recover information as permitted by law; (vii) compliance with conditions as laid down, with liberty to investigate further.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Febin Shahabas

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Peruvannamuzhi Police Station, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Nidhi Balachandran
  • • Advocate for petitioner

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Neema T. V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Febin Shahabas, aged 22, is the petitioner-accused in Crime No. 102/2024 of the Peruvannamuzhi Police Station, Kozhikode, charged under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. The High Court of Kerala hears Bail Appln. No. 1715 of 2024 seeking relief under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that on 16.02.2024 the accused trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant and stole 45 kilograms of arecanuts valued at Rs. 14,000. The petitioner contends innocence and claims false implication due to animosity from the Investigating Officer; he has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2024 and the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting four other similar offences and the likelihood of re-offending; she also contends that the investigation is not complete. After careful consideration, the court emphasises the accused’s custodial period and the substantial progress in investigation, yet finds detention beyond this stage unwarranted. The court grants bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance before the IO, prohibition on inducing witnesses, non-commission of offences while on bail, surrender of passport if any, and a mechanism for cancellation/modification of bail for violation; it also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for authority on such conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence, asserts false implication due to animosity by the Investigating Officer, and argues that custody since 24.02.2024 with near-complete investigation and recovery justifies bail; seeks release under Section 439 CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The State countered with the petitioner’s involvement in four other similar crimes and the ongoing investigation not being complete, arguing against bail to prevent possibility of reoffending.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority for allowing continued investigation/recovery on information while bail persists, reflecting Supreme Court guidance adopted by the Kerala High Court.

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 Febin Shahabas v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Peruvannamuzhi Police Station 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 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1715 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.102/2024 OF PERUVANNAMUZHY POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`KOZHIKODE`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` FEBIN SHAHABAS, AGED 22 YEARS S/O KUNJAMMAD, VALIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUYIPPOTH, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 ``` ``` BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 673528`** - **`BY ADV SMT. NEEMA T. V. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1715 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the sole accused in Crime No.102/2024 of the Peruvannamuzhi Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 24.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 16.02.2024, at around 13.05 hours, the accused trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant and committed the theft of 45 kilograms of arecanuts worth Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only). Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. ``` 3 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` 3. Heard; Sri. Nidhi Balachandran the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime by the Investigating Officer out of his previous animosity towards the petitioner. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in this bail application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner was ``` 4 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` involved in four other crimes of similar nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing the similar offences. Moreover, the investigation in the case is not complete. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the definite view that, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him ``` 5 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; ii) 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; iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; ``` 6 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he 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 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 petitioner even while ``` 7 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024 ``` 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]. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1715 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1715/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/2/24 IN CMP NO 865/24 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II, PERAMBRA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL`**