High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-03Bail granted

GOKUL & SHAJI v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport (or affidavit if none); (v) powers to Cancel/modify bail for violations; (vi) Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and recover as necessary, including admissible steps under Sushila Aggarwal; (vii) adherence to the court’s orders and law.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GOKUL
SHAJI

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer, Ochira Police Station, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Siju Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

• C.S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail petition (BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024) arising from Crime No. 289 of 2024 registered at Ochira Police Station, Kollam, under sections 294(b), 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners, accused 2 and 3, were arrested on 09.03.2024. The prosecution alleges that on 08.03.2024, driven by prior animosity and in furtherance of a common intention, an unlawful assembly assaulted the defacto complainant’s son, Sujith, with a knife; the first accused inflicted a grievous stab wound, while the petitioners allegedly facilitated the attack. The petitioners contend their innocence and argue that section 307 IPC does not apply to them since the first accused caused the injury; they also note counter-claim injuries to themselves and point out they have been in judicial custody since 09.03.2024 with investigation largely complete and recoveries effected. The learned Counsel for the petitioners urges that continued detention is unnecessary, and bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor concedes that the first accused directly assaulted the victim but contends the investigation is ongoing. Relying on Supreme Court authority (Sanjay Chandra; Dataram Singh; State of Kerala v. Raneef) and the bail framework, the court finds that custodial detention is unwarranted given completion of investigation and recovered materials. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed with conditions, including bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is a rule and imprisonment before conviction is an exception
Right to life under Article 21 for undertrial prisoners and the impact of delay in trial
Bail conditions based on established precedents (e.g., Sushila Aggarwal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they are completely innocent of the alleged offences and assert that it was the 1st accused who inflicted the grievous injury on the victim; they also highlight counter-case injuries suffered by them. They have been in custody since 09.03.2024 and the investigation is largely complete with recoveries effected. They submit that continued detention is unnecessary and that bail should be granted, with a view to ensuring justice and humane treatment.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes a wholesale grant of bail, acknowledging that the 1st accused assaulted the victim but arguing that investigation is ongoing and that bail should not be automatic; however, he concedes the 1st accused’s act of stabbing and the need to balance rights with the ongoing inquiry.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Reaffirms presumption of innocence and that imprisonment before conviction is punitive; bail should not be denied solely on past conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Bail is a general rule; detention is an exception; court must exercise discretionary, compassionate judgment.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Undertrial prisoners’ rights under Article 21; delays in trial can infringe life and liberty.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Guides bail conditions and careful exercise of bail powers; ensures safeguards on pretrial liberty.

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 GOKUL & SHAJI v. 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.289/2024 OF Ochira Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.470 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/S:** **1 GOKUL AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SHAJI, MUTTATHU THARAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKE MURI, PUTHUPPALLI P.O, DEVIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690527** **2 SHAJI AGED 49 YEARS S/O.JAGADEVAN, MUTTATHU THARAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKE MURI, PUTHUPPALLI P.O, DEVIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690527** **BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.289/2024 of the Ochira Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioners were arrested on 09.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 08.03.2024 at around 22 hours, the accused, out of their previous animosity and in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly and jointly attacked the defacto complainant's son named Sujith. The 1[st] accused inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of the injured with a knife and he suffered a grievous injury. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.Siju, the learned counsel appearing BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 3 for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. Section 307 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioners, since it was the 1[st] accused who inflicted the stab injury on the abdomen of the son of the defacto complainant. In fact, in the alleged incident, the petitioners had also suffered is a counter case injuries and there registered in connection with the incident. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 09.03.2024, the investigation of the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 4 progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that it was the 1[st] accused who assaulted the injured with a knife and caused a grievous injury on his abdomen. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that it was the 1[st] accused who inflicted the grievous injury on the victim with a knife. The allegations against the petitioners are that they facilitated the 1[st] accused to attack the injured. 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 5 grant of bail is a 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. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that it was the 1[st] accused who inflicted the grievous injury on the injured, that the petitioners have been in judicial BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 6 custody since 09.03.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 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 Investigating Officer on 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 7 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; 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 they have no passport, they 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 8 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 petitioners even while the 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** rkc/03.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2479 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2479/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** |**Annexure A1**|**TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.289/2024 OF**| |---|---| ||**OACHIRA POLICE STATION DATED 9.3.2024**| |**Annexure A2**|**THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.290/2024 OF**| ||**OACHIRA POLICE STATION DATED 9.3.2024**| |**Annexure A3**|**THE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED**| ||**9.3.2024 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. SEEMA**| ||**AND SOBHA FROM PARABRAHMA SPECIALTY**| ||**HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, OACHIRA**| |**Annexure A4**|**THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.3.2024 IN**| ||**CRL.M.C NO.470/2024 ON THE FILE OF**| ||**SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM**|