Jacob Ummen v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-01-31
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amount, subject to stringent conditions (appearance before IO on Saturdays for two months or until final report, refrain from inducing or tampering with witnesses, refrain from committing offences, surrender passport, restrict entry into the Court’s territorial jurisdiction except for reporting, and cancellation on breach). The order also notes the court may modify or delete bail conditions and cites Sushila Aggarwal for authority on continuing investigations while on bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; case disposed in terms of bail order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jacob Ummen

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Binu George
• Hemalatha Amanta Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 31 January 2024, in Bail Application No. 334 of 2024, the Kerala High Court (Single Judge: C.S. Dias) considered the bail prayer of Jacob Ummen in Crime No. 1747/2023 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam. The prosecution alleges that around 3 a.m. on 30 December 2023, the accused, driven by prior animosity toward the defacto complainant, used obscene words and stabbed him in the neck with a knife with the intention to murder, constituting offences under IPC sections 294(b), 324 and 307. The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated; he asserts a close friendship with the defacto complainant and that the two were at the scene to celebrate New Year, during which the petitioner himself sustained injuries. He submits that the offence under section 307 is not attracted; he has been in custody for about a month, the investigation is largely complete, and he is willing to abide by stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation, criminal antecedents, risk of witness intimidation and tampering, and potential recidivism. The court notes the treatment certificate showing hospital admission and discharge around the time of the incident, the petitioner’s custody period and progress of investigation, and lack of prior similar offences, and finds continued detention unnecessary. Bail is granted on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including reporting, non-interference with witnesses, abstaining from offences, passport surrender, territorial limitations, and potential cancellation on violation, with reference to Sushila Aggarwal for investigative continuity.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, noting a close friendship with the defacto complainant and that the two were at the scene to celebrate New Year; he asserts the 307 IPC charge is not attracted; he has been in custody for about a month and the investigation is largely complete; he is willing to comply with stringent conditions and cooperates with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is ongoing, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, there is a likelihood of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence if released, and the petitioner may commit similar offences; bail should be denied.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that investigations and recoveries can proceed and be effected even while the accused is on bail, supporting imposition and enforcement of strict bail conditions.

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 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1747/2023 OF East Kallada Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 25/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS , SASTHAMCOTTA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** JACOB UMMEN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. UMMEN, CHARUVIL HOUSE, KUMMANCHERI JN.,THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682033 BY ADVS. BINU GEORGE HEMALATHA AMANTA MATHEW ## **RESPONDENT/S:** STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 2 ## **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.1747/2023 of the East Kallada Police Station, Kollam, registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 3 a.m. on 30.12.2023, the accused out of his previous animosity against the defacto complainant uttered obscene words at him and stabbed him on his neck with a knife with an intention to commit murder. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Smt.Binu Geroge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 3 that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In fact the petitioner and the defacto complainant are close friends and they went to the place of occurrence to celebrate the New Year. It is at the said venue that the alleged altercation occurred. In fact, the petitioner had also sustained injuries in the said incident. At any rate, the offence under Section 307 will not be attracted. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. She contended that the BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 4 investigation is in progress. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in two abkari cases. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tamper with evidence. He is also likely to commit similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly going through the treatment certificate dated 23.01.2024 which shows that the injured was admitted in Travancore Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 30.12.2023 and was discharged on 01.01.2024, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 31.12.2023, that the investigation in the case has progressed, that the recovery has been effected and the petitioner is not involved in any crime of similar nature, I am of the definite view that the BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 5 petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. for a period of two months 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 6 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; - (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) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kollam, unless for the purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday. - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 7 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (viii) 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 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** rkc/31.01.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 334 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 334/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1747/2023 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 IN CMP NO. 25/2024 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA