High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-08-07Partly allowed; 1st accused denied pre-arrest b...

Hariprasad S Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Thankamani Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024

Neutral Citation:2024:KER:59968

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-08-07
Court Decision / Holding: (1) The application filed by the 1st accused is dismissed. The court directs that if the petitioner surrenders within seven days, he shall be interrogated and produced before the court on surrender; upon such surrender a bail application may be considered on its merits. (2) The application filed by petitioners 4 and 5 is dismissed as unwarranted. (3) The application filed by accused 2 and 5 (petitioners 2 and 3) is allowed, subject to: (i) surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; (ii) bail on Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties for the like amount; (iii) appearance for interrogation as directed; (iv) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (v) surrender of passports within one week; (vi) no involvement in other offences while on bail; (vii) court may cancel bail for violation; (viii) petitions for modification of bail conditions to be filed; (ix) investigation and recovery measures may continue under law; (x) observations are limited to bail considerations and do not reflect merits. Sd/- C. S. Dias, J.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; 1st accused denied pre-arrest bail; petitioners 2 and 3 granted bail under conditions; petitioners 4 and 5 dismissed as unwarranted; orderly surrender and compliance with bail conditions required; observations limited to bail context.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hariprasad S Nair
Reji Thomas
Jiji Joseph
Suresh K Uthaman
Jibin Joseph

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Thankamani Police Station (Crime No. 311/2024, Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Rajeev
• Vinay M.S.
• Aneer Prerith Philip Joseph
• Anil Kumar C.R.
• K.S. Kiran Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Additional Director General of Prosecution

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC by five petitioners in Crime No. 311/2024 of Thankamani Police Station, Idukki, challenging an order in the related CRMC proceedings. The accused are charged with offences including attempting to commit acts with intent to insult or hinder a public servant (Sections 353, 332 read with 34 IPC), wrongful restraint, causing hurt, destruction of property, and offences under Section 15(c) of the Kerala Abkari Act, with additional charges linked to Section 506 (criminal intimidation) and Section 34 IPC. The prosecution’s case is that on the night of 21 May 2024, while the defacto complainant and his patrolling team interrupted the accused who allegedly prepared to consume alcohol in a waiting shed, the 1st accused allegedly pushed the complainant, struck his chest, and his head against a jeep; others allegedly pushed, threatened, or aided in removing the 1st accused, obstructing duty, and destroying or removing material objects. The petitioners contend innocence and false implication, arguing there is no material establishing the specific overt acts against accused 2 and 5, and that Section 353/332 charges are unfounded. The prosecution contends that custodial interrogation of the 1st accused is necessary and that granting bail would impede the investigation. The Court ultimately holds that while the 1st accused’s overt act is corroborated, there is no concrete overt act against 2 and 5; accordingly, pre-arrest bail is denied for the 1st accused, while petitioners 2 and 3 are granted bail on strict conditions, and petitioners 4 and 5 are dismissed as unwarranted. The order emphasizes continued investigation and imposes standard bail conditions including surrender, bonds, restrictions on tampering with evidence, passport surrender, and no involvement in other offences, with a caveat that the observations pertain to bail only and do not decide merits.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Sections 353, 332, 225, 201, 506 r/w Section 34 IPCSection 15(c) of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They argue there is no material to establish that the petitioners (particularly accused 2 and 5) committed the specific overt acts alleged under Sections 353 and 332 IPC. They contend they are law-abiding with no criminal antecedents; hence, they seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC on grounds of lack of direct involvement and to safeguard personal liberty. They assert that custodial interrogation is not warranted for them and that the investigation can progress without arrest. They contend that the prosecution’s reliance on the first accused’s overt act should not blanketly extend to all petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, arguing that the first accused inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant and that custodial interrogation is essential for proper investigation. The prosecution notes that the alleged overt act against the first accused is corroborated by treatment records and that granting pre-arrest bail to the first accused could impede the investigation. It points out that others’ mere presence or involvement in taking the first accused away has not been sufficiently established as overt acts attracting the cited IPC sections, but emphasises the need to maintain the integrity of the investigation and ensure continued cooperation under lawful conditions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support that investigation may continue and recoveries can be effected even while an accused is on bail; the court acknowledges this Supreme Court principle in framing bail conditions.

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 Hariprasad S Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Thankamani Police Station and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 1 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 CRIME NO.311/2024 OF Thankamani Police Station, Idukki AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.438 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONER/S: - **1 HARIPRASAD S NAIR, AGED 28 YEARS S/O SIVAPRASAD,VEVAKARATTU HOUSE, ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. IDUKKI DISTRICT -, PIN - 685554** - **2 REJI THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS S/O THOMAS,ELIPULIKATT HOUSE,ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685554** - **3 JIJI JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS** **S/O JOSEPH,PANTHALLARU PARAMBIL HOUSE,ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT -, PIN - 685554** **4 SURESH K UTHAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O UTHAMAN,KARIPOTT HOUSE,ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685554** **5 JIBIN JOSEPH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O JOSEPH THOMAS,KANDATHIL HOUSE,IDINJAMALA P O,ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT –, PIN - 685554** **BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN** BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 2 2024:KER:59968 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** RESPONDENT/S: - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THANKAMANI POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 311/2024 OF THANKAMANI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT -, PIN - 685515** **BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** OTHER PRESENT: ## **ADGP SRI GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE ,SR PP SRI C K SURESH** THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **-------------------------------------------Bail Application No.4835 of 2024 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of August, 2024** ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'), by the accused in Crime No.311/2024 of the Thankamani Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 225, 201 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 15(c) of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077 . 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 21.05.2024, at around 22:20 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, were making preparations to consume alcohol in a waiting shed. At that time, the defacto complainant/S.I. of Police of Thanakamni Police Station and his party were doing patrolling duty. On seeing the accused preparing to have alcohol, they went to the scene of occurrence. Then, the 1[st] accused pushed on BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 the chest of the defacto complainant and hit his head on the back of the jeep and he suffered hurt. The 2[nd] accused threatened to beat the defacto complainant and his party, and then pushed the defacto complainant on his chest, and he and the other accused took away the 1[st] accused from the place of occurrence. Thus, they obstructed the defacto complainant and his party from discharging their official duties. They also destroyed the material object used to commit the offence. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer using his power and influence has incorporated Sections 353 and 332 to see that the petitioners are denied bail. There BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 is no material to establish that the petitioners have used force against the defacto complainant and his party, and interdicted them from discharging their duties. The petitioners are law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused 1, 2 and 5. the petitioners 4 and 5 are not accused in the crime. The specific overt act is alleged against the 1[st] accused, who hit the defacto complainant's head on the back of the jeep and he suffered an injury. He made available the treatment records of the defacto complainant dated 22.05.2024 issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Idukki, to substantiate that the defacto complainant suffered injuries on his head. He stated that the 1[st] accused' s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper and full investigation of the crime. If the 1[st] accused is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that there are no specific allegations against the accused 2 and 5 who only took away the 1[st] accused from the scene of occurrence and obstructed the defacto complainant from discharging his duties. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be deciphered that the specific overt act is alleged against 1[st] accused, who hit the defacto complainant on his chest and hit his head on the back of the jeep. The said allegation prima facie stands corroborated by the treatment records referred to above. However, there is no specific overt act alleged against the accused 2 and 5 so as to attract the offences under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, although that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. 7. On an over all consideration of the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly the treatment records of the injured and on finding that the specific overt act is alleged against the 1[st] accused, I am not satisfied that the 1[st] BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 accused has made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that the 1[st] accused is not entitled to an order of pre arrest bail. On the contrary, since there is no specific overt act alleged against the accused 2 and 5, I am satisfied that they have made valid grounds to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, since the petitioners 4 and 5 are no longer accused, their application is only to be dismissed as unwarranted. In the result; (1) The application filed by the 1[st] accused/1[st] petitioner is dismissed. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today, he shall be interrogated and, thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioner moves an application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, consider the bail application on its merits. If the petitioner does not BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioner as if no order has been passed in this case. (2) The application filed by the petitioners 4 and 5 is dismissed as unwarranted. (3) The application filed by the accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 is allowed subject to the following conditions: - (i) The accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the arrest of the accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3, the Investigating Officer shall release the accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; - (iii) The accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 9 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 Investigating Officer. - (iv) The accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 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; - (v) The accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of their release on bail. If they have no passport, they shall file affidavits to the effect before said court within the said period; - (vi) The accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 10 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59968 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 investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the accused 2 and 5/ petitioners 2 and 3 even while they 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]. - (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** rkc/07.08.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4835 OF 2024 11 2024:KER:59968 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4835/2024 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure I** **A COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME NO 311 / 2024 OF THANKAMANI POLICE STATION DATED 22.05.2024** **Annexure II** **A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 IN CRL MC NO 438/2024. 451/2024. 454/2024**