High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-09Application allowed subject to prescribed bail ...

Jerin Koshy v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail under section 438 CrPC subject to conditions: surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days; production before the jurisdictional court on arrest; bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; passport surrender (or affidavit if none); cooperation with investigation; not intimidating witnesses or committing other offences; and further conditions including compliance with investigation and potential cancellation on violation, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another for bail considerations.
Final Disposition: Application allowed subject to prescribed bail conditions and ongoing supervision of investigation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jerin Koshy

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala; Station House Officer, Yeroor Police Station, Yeroor, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Goutham Krishna U.B.
• Anandu A.B.
• Nidhi Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T V

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jerin Koshy, the third accused in Crime No.132/2024 of Yeroor Police Station, Kollam, seeks pre-arrest bail under section 438 CrPC. The case involves three accused charged with offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an incident on 16.02.2024 in which the defacto complainant alleges that the accused assaulted him with a dangerous weapon, causing rib fractures. The prosecution states that the 1st accused delivered the direct blow to the victim’s face, neck and head with a punching block, while the petitioner and the 2nd accused allegedly assaulted the victim after he fell. Annexures indicate the 1st and 2nd accused have already been granted bail by the Magistrate. The petitioner contends he is innocent and that the specific overt act alleged against him does not attract Section 326; he asserts custodial interrogation is unnecessary and there is no recovery sought from him. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing ongoing investigation and highlighting the injury certificate and the overt act by the 1st accused. Upon evaluation, the court finds that the overt act was committed by the 1st accused, and the petitioner’s involvement appears to be post-fall assault, with Section 326 not attracted on the present record. Consequently, the court grants pre-arrest bail subject to conditions, including surrender within ten days, production before the court on arrest, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, surrender of passport if any, and ongoing cooperation with investigation, along with prohibitions on witness intimidation and commission of other offences; reaffirming Sushila Aggarwal guidelines on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends his innocence and submits that the act alleged against him does not attract Section 326 IPC; the primary assault was by the 1st accused with a punching block. He asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, there is no recovery sought from him, and the other co-accused have been granted bail. He seeks protection from ongoing investigation while on bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting ongoing investigation and relying on the evidence showing the 1st accused’s overt act with the punching block; she cites the victim’s treatment certificate and argues that the gravity and nature of offences necessitate continued investigation while not denying the possibility of bail if conditions are satisfied.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited by the High Court to support bail considerations and guidelines applicable to pre-arrest bail in Indian criminal procedure.

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 Jerin Koshy 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** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.132/2024 OF Yeroor Police Station, Kollam** **PETITIONER/S:** **JERIN KOSHY, AGED 26 YEARS S/O REJIMON KOSHY, VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTHALATHU, ALENCHERRY, YEROOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312** **BY ADVS. GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B. ANANDU A.B. NIDHI BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YERROOR POLICE STATION YERROOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 673528** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.132/2024 of the Yeroor Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 16.02.2024, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, hit the defacto complainant with a dangerous weapon on his face, neck and head and he suffered fracture of his three ribs. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Goutham Krishna U.B., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 3 the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that the offence under Section 326 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. It was the 1[st] accused, who assaulted the defacto complainant with a punching block on his left eye, neck and head which resulted in him suffering fracture of his ribs. The only allegation against the petitioner is that, he along with the 2[nd] accused had assaulted the defacto complainant when he fell down. The accused 1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Annexure-A2 order. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 4 the specific overt act is alleged against the 1[st] accused, who assaulted the defacto complainant with a punching block which in turn resulted in him suffering fracture of his ribs. She made available the treatment certificate of the defacto complainant issued by the St.Joseph's Mission Hospital, Anchal, Kollam dated 28.02.2024 to substantiate her assertions. She prayed that the application may be dismissed. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that it was the 1[st] accused who used a punching block and assaulted the defacto complainant who suffered fractures of his ribs. The said allegation is corroborated by the accident register cum wound certificate. However, the specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that, after the defacto complainant fell down, he along with the 2[nd] accused assaulted the defacto complainant. Prima facie on evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the offence under Section 326 will not be attracted against the petitioner. BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 5 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and in view of the findings already rendered above, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, especially because his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to conditions. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 6 sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (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 co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; vi). The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vii). The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. viii). 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 APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 7 bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (x) 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/09.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2335 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2335/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/24 IN CRL. M.C. 438/24 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM** **Annexure A2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - I, PUNALUR DATED 21.03.24 ENLARGING THE ACCUSED 1 AND 2 IN THE CRIME ON BAIL**