High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-03Partially allowed; bail granted to accused 2 an...

Manu Das, Sudhi and Manesh Das v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Sasthamkotta Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: The 1st accused’s bail application is dismissed. The applications for accused 2 and 3 are allowed, directing them to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday 9–11 a.m. until final report; (ii) not to induce or tamper with witnesses; (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports if any; (v) the IO may investigate and effect recoveries if needed; (vi) power to modify/delete bail conditions; (vii) reference to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another for the principle on continuing investigation and recoveries while on bail.
Final Disposition: Partially allowed; bail granted to accused 2 and 3; bail denied to accused 1; bail conditions including bond, appearances, and safeguards against witness intimidation; IO empowered to continue investigations and recoveries.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MANU DAS
SUDHI
MANESH DAS

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Ajaya Kumar. G.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Shinymol, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail petition (BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024) challenging the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Sasthamcotta, in Crime No. 423/2024. The petitioners—Manu Das, Sudhi, and Manesh Das—are charged with offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506(i) and 307 r/w 34. The prosecution alleges that on 12.03.2024, in a fit of prior animosity, the accused restrained the de facto complainant and his friend Rahul; the first accused stabbed the complainant in the chest, causing a deep chest injury and rib fracture, and when a bystander intervened, the first accused stabbed him as well. The second accused is said to have vandalized the complainant’s autorickshaw, causing substantial loss, while the third accused allegedly uttered obscene words. The petitioners claim innocence, asserting false implication, and contend that the IO has inappropriately added Section 307 to deny bail; they argue investigation is near complete and there are no prior criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the grievous injuries, the risk of witness intimidation, and ongoing investigation, though she concedes only for accused 2 and 3. The court, after weighing the evidence, declined bail for the 1st accused but allowed bail for the 2nd and 3rd accused, with bonds of Rs.50,000 each and standard conditions; it also notes that the IO may continue investigation and recoveries, referencing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506(i) & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they are totally innocent and falsely implicated. They argue that the Investigating Officer deliberately added Section 307 to deny bail, despite no antecedents and with investigation practically complete and recoveries effected. They urge the Court to exercise judicial discretion and grant bail on reasonable conditions, noting their custodial period since 17.03.2024.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the 1st accused inflicted grievous injuries on the de facto complainant and his friend, including stab wounds, while the 2nd accused vandalized the auto, and the 3rd accused uttered obscene words. They emphasize the ongoing nature of the investigation and the real risk that bail could enable intimidation or tampering with evidence, though they concede bail for accused 2 and 3 given the nature of their overt acts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support that investigations and recoveries may continue and that bail can be granted with conditions under which the investigation may proceed, aligning with Supreme Court guidance.

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 Manu Das, Sudhi and Manesh Das v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Sasthamkotta Police Station 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 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.423/2024 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.593 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, SASTHAMCOTTA PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MANU DAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O DEVADAS, ADI-ABHIYIL HOUSE(KRISHNA BHAVAN),KUNNATHUR PADINJATTE MURI, KUNNATHUR P.O.,KUNNATHUR VILLAGE,KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** - **2 SUDHI, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O SIJU, ADI-ABHIYIL HOUSE(KRISHNA BHAVAN),KUNNATHUR PADINJATTE MURI, KUNNATHUR P.O.,KUNNATHUR VILLAGE,KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** - **3 MANESH DAS , AGED 34 YEARS, S/O DEVADAS, ADI-ABHIYIL HOUSE(KRISHNA BHAVAN),KUNNATHUR PADINJATTE MURI, KUNNATHUR P.O.,KUNNATHUR VILLAGE,KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** **BY ADV AJAYA KUMAR. G** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SASTHAMKOTTAH POLICE STATION,SASTHAMKOTTAH,KOLLAM, PIN - 690521** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.423/2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506(i) & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 12.03.2024 at around 12.30 hours, the accused 1 to 3, out of their previous animosity and in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friend named Rahul, and the 1[st] accused stabbed the defacto complainant on his chest with a knife, who suffered a deep injury on the left side of his chest and a fracture on his ribs. Thereafter, when one of the friends of the defacto complainant named Krishnadas attempted to prevent the 1[st] accused from committing further assault on the defacto complainant, BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 3 the 1[st] accused stabbed him also. The 2[nd] accused vandalized the autorikshaw of the defacto complainant and caused a loss of Rs.75,000/-. The 3[rd] accused uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Ajaya Kumar G., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Shinymol, 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 307 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and and they have no criminal antecedents. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 17.03.2024, the investigation in the case is BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 4 practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that the 1[st] accused had brutally assaulted the defacto complainant and had inflicted a stab injury on him with a knife and he suffered a grievous injury including a fracture of his ribs. The 1[st] accused also stabbed the friend of the defacto complainant named Krishnadas, who also suffered a grievous injury. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 12.03.2024 of the injured to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by the defacto complainant and his friend. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the 1[st] accused is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the specific overt act alleged against the 2[nd] accused is that he vandalized the autorikshaw of the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 5 complainant and the 3[rd] accused uttered obscene words. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the materials on record, it can be seen that it was the 1[st] accused, who inflicted grievous injuries both on the defacto complainant and his friend – the injured. The accident register cum wound certificate of the two injured, prima facie, corroborates with the accusations leveled by the prosecution. The 1[st] accused has been arrested along with the others on 17.02.2024. It is submitted that the investigation is in progress. On the contrary, it is seen that the allegations leveled against the accused 2 and 3 are that the 2[nd] accused vandalized the autorikshaw and the 3[rd] accused uttered obscene words. Therefore, I am of the view that the application filed by the 1[st] accused is to be rejected and the applications of accused 2 and 3 are to be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 6 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations leveled against the 1[st] accused, who has inflicted grievous injuries on both the injured, that the investigation in the case, so far as the 1[st] accused is concerned, is in progress, and there is a reasonable apprehension that he may intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, I am not inclined to release the 1[st] accused on bail. Nonetheless, I am inclined to allow the applications filed by the accused 2 and 3. In the result: - (i) The application filed by the 1[st] accused/ 1[st] petitioner shall stand dismissed. - (ii) The application filed by the petitioners 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 are allowed, by directing the petitioners 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 to be released on bail on them BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 7 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 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 shall appear before the Officer on Investigating 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 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 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 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 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 8 iv. The petitioners 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they 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. 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 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 even while the petitioners 2 and 3/ BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 9 accused 2 and 3 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/03.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2491 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2491/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-03-2024 IN C M P NO. 593/2024 OF THE JFMC-II, SASTHAMKOTTAH**