Mahesh v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 201 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.898/2023 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 1923/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS** ## **COURT,THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **MAHESH AGED 37 YEARS S/O LOHIDHAKSHAN, KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, KANNEKUTHY AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680512** **BY ADVS. V.V.JOY RAMAKRISHNAN M.N.** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **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 24.01.2024, THE** **COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in crime No.898/2023 of the Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (3 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 324, 326, 452, 506 and 427 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2023. 2. The concise case of the prosecution is that: around 19.15 hours on 01.12.2023, the accused in prosecution of their common intention and out of their previous animosity attacked one Noufal. On seeing the same, the defactocomplainant attempted to intervene and rescue Noufal. Then, the first accused threw a soda bottle at Noufal. The soda bottle hit on the head of Noufal and he sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture on his scalp. **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **3** Thereafter, the accused caused extensive mischief in the place of occurrence namely “Greenland Hotel”, by destroying the furniture. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.V.Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime out of a political rivalry. A reading of Annexure 1 F.I.Statement would go to show that the petitioner has no complicity in the crime. Even assuming the allegations to be true, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete and 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. **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **4** 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. There are 13 cases registered against the petitioner for committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The injured had specifically stated that the petitioner had thrown the soda bottle. The investigation in the case is still in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, particularly keeping in mind his antecedents. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that on 01.12.2023, the petitioner and two others attacked a person by name Noufal and the petitioner threw a soda bottle on Noufal. On an evaluation of Annexure 1, it is seen that there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner. Nonetheless, the Investigating Officer now states that after Noufal was discharged from the hospital, he has stated that the petitioner was the one who threw the soda bottle. The fact **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **5** remains that, prima facie, there is no material, at the time of incident, to show that the petitioner had thrown the soda bottle. 7. Now coming to the allegation regarding the antecedents of the petitioner. On going through the case diary, it can be gathered that out of the 13 cases that were registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in four cases, the proceedings in two cases have been quashed, in one case the petitioner is the defacto-complainant and in other case he had remitted a fine of Rs.500/- and only two of the cases are pending, which are crimes of the year 2019, 2020, that too wherein the predicate offence is under Sections 341 of IPC. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.12.2023. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly after going through the case diary and taking note of the fact that the investigation is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and that there are only two cases pending **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **6** agaisnt the petitioner, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his executing 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 Officer on Investigating every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month 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 acquainted with the facts of the case so **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **7** 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 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) 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. **BAIL APPL.NO.201 OF 2024** **8** (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 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** **shg**