High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-05Application allowed; accused to be released on ...

Joby and Ravi v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. DIAS, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-06-05
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, and subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO every Saturday between 9 am and 11 am until final reports; (ii) no inducement or threats to witnesses; (iii) no commission of offence while on bail; (iv) surrender (or affidavits if no passport) of passport; (v) court may cancel bail on violation; (vi) court below may entertain modifications; (vii) IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries even on bail, as per Sushila Aggarwal’s guidance.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; accused to be released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joby
Ravi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Smt. Seetha S. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Gayathri Muraleedharan
• Arathy P.
• Anjana S. Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Bail Appl. No. 4483 of 2024) by accused 2 and 3 in Crime No. 369/2024 of Ollur Police Station, Thrissur, challenging their detention under Section 439 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners, who were arrested on 07.05.2024, contend their innocence and claim they were falsely implicated; they argue that the 1st accused alone committed the overt act of assault with a spade, and that the 2nd and 3rd accused merely facilitated, with no specific overt act attributed to them. They note that the defacto complainant sustained only minor injuries; the investigation is largely complete and recovery has been effected, with one month of judicial custody already served. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting ongoing investigation and highlighting the petitioner's alleged criminal antecedents, suggesting potential tampering with evidence or intimidation if released. The court, after considering the submissions, observes that the explicit overt act is against the 1st accused and that the injury level is not severe; emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the norm, the court finds no grounds to continue detention. Consequently, the application is allowed, directing release on bail on Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, and imposing standard bail conditions including regular appearance, non-interference, no new offences, and passport surrender if applicable, with references to Sanjay Chandra and Sushila Aggarwal for guiding principles.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40)
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Article 21)
Right to bail cannot be denied merely due to sentiments of society (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI)
Powers and standards for bail and conditions guided by Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are innocent and falsely implicated; no overt act is attributed to them; investigation is largely complete; they have already spent about a month in custody; recovery has been effected. They contend the inclusion of Section 308 is unfounded against them and that bail should be granted to enable fair trial and avoid punitive pre-trial detention, especially since the 1st accused is said to have committed the overt act while the 2nd and 3rd accused only facilitated. They rely on the presumption of innocence and the need to avoid unnecessary pre-trial incarceration, urging release with appropriate conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail, arguing that investigation is ongoing and the 2nd accused has prior criminal antecedents; release could lead to tampering with evidence and witness intimidation; hence bail should be denied or conditional, ensuring that there is no interference with the investigation and that the accused do not commit further offences.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Affirms presumption of innocence and that pre-trial detention should not be used to punish prior to conviction; bail should not be refused solely on past conduct.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for guiding principles on bail conditions and exercise of preventive powers by courts while balancing investigation and personal 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 Joby and Ravi 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 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.369/2024 OF Ollur Police Station, Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 JOBY AGED 54 YEARS S/O JOSE, MENACHERY VEEDU, ANCHERY PALLAN COLONY DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680751** **2 RAVI AGED 51 YEARS VAZHAPPILLY VEEDU, ANCHERY PALLAN COLONY DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680751** **BY ADVS. GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN ARATHY P. ANJANA S. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 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.369/2024 of the Ollur Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioners were arrested on 07.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 04.05.2024, at around 17.30 hours, the 1[st] accused hurled abuses at the defacto complainant and pushed. Then, the 1[st] accused hit the defacto complainant with a spade on his head and face. The accused 2 and 3 facilitated the 1[st] accused to cause injuries to the defacto complainant and his friends. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 3 3. Heard; Smt.Gayathri Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 308 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the specific overt act is only alleged against the 1[st] accused, who allegedly hit the defacto complainant on his head with a spade. In fact, the defacto complainant has not suffered any injuries as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the 2[nd] accused has criminal antecedents since he is involved in Crime Nos.1437/2017 and 292/2002 of the Ollur Police Station. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor by handing over the copy of the judgment in S.C.No.328/2018 of the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, which arises out of Crime No.1437/2017, to substantiate the fact that the 2[nd] accused was acquitted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. She stated that in respect of Crime No.292/2002 there were no further proceedings subsequent to the registration of the crime. Therefore, BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 5 the 2[nd] accused does not have any criminal antecedents as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the application may be allowed. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt act is alleged against the 1[st] accused, who allegedly attempted to hit the defacto complainant with a spade on his head. On a perusal of the accident register cum wound certificate issued by the Thrichur District Co-operative Hospital Ltd. dated 04.05.2024 it is seen that the defacto complainant has suffered lacerated wounds and tenderness over his left forearm. There is no serious injuries caused to him. However, that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 6 8. 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. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, which is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 7 the petitioners and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 8 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; - iii. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; - iv. The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file affidavits 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. - 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 9 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/05.06.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4483 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4483/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure.A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIS DATED 05.052024** **Annexure.A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 369 OF 2024 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION DATED 05.05.2024** **Annexure.A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIS PERTAINING TO THE INCIDENT ON 04.05.2024 Annexure.A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 370 OF 2024 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION DATED 05.05.2024** **Annexure.A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO: 370 OF 2024 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION DATED 07.05.2024** **Annexure.A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO: 369 OF 2024 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION DATED 07.05.2024**