High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-25Application Allowed (Pre-arrest bail granted wi...

Mobin K Babu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-25
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the petitioner Mobin K Babu is granted pre-arrest bail under Sec. 438 CrPC, subject to conditions including surrender before the IO within 10 days, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for the like amount, appearance for interrogation as directed, no inducement or tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport within one week if available, and prohibition from committing any other offence while on bail. Investigating Officer may conduct necessary recoveries during bail in accordance with law. This order is strictly for the bail application and should not be construed as an expression on merits.
Final Disposition: Application Allowed (Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mobin K Babu

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R. Sasith

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Neema T.V. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mobin K Babu, the sole accused in Crime No. 487/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, faced a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The offences alleged are Sections 294(B), 506, 324 and 328 IPC. The prosecution states that on 24.03.2024, while the defacto complainant and the accused resided in the same house, she questioned the accused’s alcoholic traits; in response, he assaulted her with a plastic chair causing injuries to her eyebrows and later sprayed pepper powder on her face. The petitioner contends innocence and argues that offences under Sections 354 and 328 IPC are not attracted; he is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant, and civil disputes (OS No.2/2024) are pending between them. He asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that the offences were registered as a tactic to deny bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail while acknowledging ongoing investigation. The Court notes that the parties live together and there is a civil suit, with no grievous injuries reported. Having considered the materials and rival submissions, the Court finds exceptional grounds to grant pre-arrest bail, while imposing conditions including surrender within 10 days, bond and sureties, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with witnesses, passport surrender, and no further offences. The order states that investigation may proceed with recoveries if necessary, in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(B), 506, 324 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC invoked on exceptional grounds for pre-arrest bail.
Custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary where bail is granted and investigation proceeds with safeguards.
Authority of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to permit investigation and recoveries while on bail under judicial safeguards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and argues that the offences under Sections 354 and 328 IPC are not attracted; the civil disputes OS 2/2024 between the parties and the defacto complainant suggest a motive to ruin him; he is the brother-in-law of the complainant. It is argued that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, there is no need for recovery, and he should be granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, subject to reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, submits that investigation is ongoing. It is asserted that the parties reside together and a civil suit exists; the offences (294B, 506, 324, 328 IPC) are alleged and require investigation; bail should be conditional and protective measures should govern the accused’s conduct during investigation.

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 supporting the principle that an accused may be granted bail with conditions and that investigation can proceed during bail under proper safeguards.

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 Mobin K Babu 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** **THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.487/2024 OF Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/S:** **MOBIN K BABU AGED 30 YEARS S/O BABU , AIKKARAMALAYIL HOUSE, NANNOOR, VALLAMKULAM P.O., ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 689541** **BY ADV M.R.SASITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP. SMT.NEEMA T.V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **25.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.487/2024 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 506, 324 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 24.03.2024, while the accused and the defacto complainant were residing in the same house, the defacto complainant questioned the alcoholic traits of the accused. The accused got annoyed by the questioning and assaulted the defacto complainant with a plastic chair, causing an injury to her eye brows. Thereafter, he sprayed pepper powder on the face of the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 3 4. Heard; Sri.Sasith M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 First Information Report would substantiate that the offence under Sections 354 and 328 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. The said offences have been incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. There are certain civil disputes pending between the parties as O.S.No.2/2024 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla. It is only to wreck vengeance on the petitioner and as an arm twisting tactic that the present crime has been registered by the defacto complainant. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 4 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the allegation against the petitioner was that he hit the defacto complainant with a plastic chair and caused her injury and also that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing in the same house. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing in the same house and there is a civil suit pending between the parties before the Civil Court as O.S.No.2/2024. The allegation against the petitioner is that he hit the defacto complainant with a plastic chair since she attempted to question the petitioner's alcoholic traits. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that there are civil disputes between the parties, the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 5 complainant has not suffered any grievous injuries and further that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that he co-operates with the Investigating Officer. Hence, I am convinced that the petitioner has made out exceptional grounds to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 6 each; - (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. - (iv) 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; - (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court within the said period; BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 7 - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; - (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 also be filed before the court 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** BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 8 **Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. - (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/25.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2890 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2890/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 487/2024 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT ON OS NO 2/2024 FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER**