Keshmat S.K. v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts, to the satisfaction of the concern court, subject to specified conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Keshmat S.K

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saijo Hassan

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Hrithwik (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Keshmat S.K. v. State of Kerala is a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC filed by the fourth accused in Crime No.224/2024 of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, alleging illegal possession and transfer of explosives under Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. The petitioner, an employee of the first accused, contends innocence and asserts that the offence under Section 5(a) does not apply to him. He has been in judicial custody since 7 March 2024; the investigation is described as practically complete with recoveries effected, and there are no criminal antecedents. The first accused allegedly procured the explosives, which were used by accused 2 to 4 to blast rocks for constructing a well. The prosecution opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation, though it concedes the stated facts. The Kerala High Court weighs liberty against public safety, noting the petitioner’s lack of local roots in Kerala but invoking the principle from Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar to permit bail under stringent conditions. Ultimately, the court grants bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearances before the IO, no inducement or tampering, passport surrender, provision of address and mobile number, territorial restrictions, and a provision for cancellation or modification of bail if violated; recoveries during bail may be effected as per Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 2020 (1) KHC 663

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues he is completely innocent and not liable under Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, as he was only an employee of the first accused who allegedly procured the explosives. He has been in judicial custody since 7 March 2024, the investigation is practically complete, and recoveries have been effected. He has no criminal antecedents and has no substantial ties to Kerala, which justifies a bail grant under the need to balance personal liberty with public safety. The applicant contends the strict conditions proposed by the court can safeguard the investigation and the prosecution’s case while allowing liberty during trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting that the investigation is ongoing. However, he conceded that the petitioner was arrested on 7 March 2024, the investigation is practically complete, and recoveries have been effected, and that the petitioner has no prior criminal record. The prosecution stresses the severity of the offence and the need to maintain the integrity of the investigation, suggesting that bail should be granted only with stringent conditions or, if necessary, be denied pending further progress.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Cited to support liberal bail principles and the balancing of liberty with public safety under stringent conditions.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to authorize pursuing recoveries by the IO even while the accused is on bail.

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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2399 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.224/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.2099 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` KESHMAT S.K AGED 33 YEARS SON OF MOSEN S.K KANKAORA VILLAGE, BARDDHAMAN, PAISHGARM, WEST BENGAL., PIN - 713147 ``` ``` BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4[th] accused in Crime No.224/2024 of the Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (4 in number) for allegedly committing the offence under Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 7.3.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; on 6.3.2024, at around 15 hours, the first accused had illegally collected explosives, which falls under the second category of explosives, without any licence or permission **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` and handed it over to the accused 2 to 4. As per the instructions of the first accused, the accused 2 to 4 used the explosives to blast the rocks to construct a well. The act of the accused is likely to endanger human life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard Sri. Saijo Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offence under Section 5(a) of the Act will not be attracted against the petitioner. It was the first accused who allegedly procured the explosives. The petitioner was only an employee of the first accused. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 7.3.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 7.3.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 7.3.2024, that the Investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected and further that the petitioner has no criminal ## **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** ## **`5`** antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the petitioner does not have any roots in Kerala, and taking into account the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81],, I am of the view that the petitioner can 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties (preferably one of them from the State of Kerala) 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 Tuesday and Saturday ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the determination of the case. (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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and his mobile phone number to the Investigating Officer as well as before the Court; (vi) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thrissur without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Court. (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 the same, in accordance with law. (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2399 of 2024** 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 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/- ``` rmm/1/4/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**