High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-13Bail Granted

Jerrin C.G v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1705 OF 2024

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the bail application. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for a month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no new offences; (iv) surrender of passport if any; (v) correct present and permanent addresses and mobile number; (vi) court may cancel bail on violation; (vii) court below may entertain modifications of bail conditions; (viii) IO may continue investigation and recoveries if needed, as guided by Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020 (1) KHC 663).
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jerrin C.G

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Abani

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T.V. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jerrin C.G., the fourth accused in Crime No.134/2024 of the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, petitions the Kerala High Court for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The charges allege offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an incident on the night of 5 February 2024 in which accused 1–3 allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant, causing grievous injuries, with accused 4 and 5 helping by restraining him. The petitioner asserts his bona fide innocence, arguing that his only alleged overt act was to catch hold of the complainant and facilitate the attack by others, and that the specific act of the main assault lay with accused 1–3; he contends the prosecution’s Annexure A1 shows no clear case under Sec. 307 against him. He surrendered after Annexure A2 and has been in judicial custody since 22 February 2024; the investigation is stated to be practically complete and no criminal antecedents exist. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, though she conceded that the primary assault was committed by accused 1–3 and sought dismissal of the bail plea. The court, after weighing material on record and noting the petitioner’s custody period, ordered bail with a Rs. 50,000 bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including regular IO appearances, no tampering with witnesses, no new offences, surrender of passport, address and contact details, and potential cancellation on violation; it also cites that investigation may continue on bail per a Supreme Court precedent (Sushila Aggarwal).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 324 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 307 IPCSection 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is innocent and not responsible for the overt act attributed to accused 1–3. He argues that Annexure A1 suggests no case under Sec. 307 IPC against him, as his role was limited to aiding by apprehending the complainant, with the main assault by others. Having surrendered per Annexure A2 and remained in custody since 22.02.2024, and given that the investigation is practically complete and there are no antecedents, he seeks bail to avoid unnecessary detention. He asserts that continued detention is unwarranted and requests release on bond with reasonable conditions to facilitate his defense.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, contends that the core assault was committed by accused 1–3, while the petitioner and the fifth accused facilitated the attack. The State prays for dismissal of the bail petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the possibility of witness tampering, and the need for ongoing investigation. It concedes that the overt act is not the principal offence but maintains that bail should not be granted to prevent interference with the investigation and to preserve public safety.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited as authority for allowing continued investigation and recoveries by the Investigating Officer even while the accused is on bail, illustrating an acceptable scope of police action under 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 Jerrin C.G 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.

1 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1705 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.134/2024 OF Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` JERRIN C.G, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, CHULLIKALATHIL HOUSE, NEAR AROOKUTTY BRIDGE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688534 ``` ``` BY ADV P.ABANI ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024** **----------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] 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 fourth accused in crime No.134/2024 of the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.324, 326 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 5.2.2024 at around 11.00 p.m, the accused 1 to 3 had assaulted the de facto complainant and caused grievous 3 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 injuries to him. The accused 4 and 5 facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack by catching hold of the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.P.Abani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Sec.307 may not be attracted as against the petitioner, since going by the prosecution case, the petitioner only facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack. The specific overt act is 4 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 alleged against the accused 1 to 3. Pursuant to Annexure A2 order, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer and he was remanded to judicial custody on 22.2.2024. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 24 days. The investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that it was the accused 1 to 3 who carried out the attack on the injured. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to 5 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 carry out the attack. She prayed that the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is clear that it was the accused 1 to 3 who attacked the de facto complainant. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submission made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.2.2023, that the investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected 6 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 and further that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued 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 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, 7 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 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; (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 furnish his present address and 8 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. (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 9 Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 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/- sks/13.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**