Mohammed Ijlal v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Ernakulam City

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.149/2024 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 130/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM CRMC 333/2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:`** ``` MOHAMMED IJLAL AGED 22 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM, AGED 22 YEARS, EKRATH HOUSE, MUZHAKUNNU P.O, MUZHAKUNNU VILLAGE, IRITTI TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670703 BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW PRAVEEN S. SUNIL KUMAR A.G MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. DIPU JAMES STEPHY K REGI MEDHA B.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINAN:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY - REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** ``` HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SMT. SEETHA S. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1084 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the 8[th] accused in Crime No.149/2024 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered against accused (fourteen in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 18.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 17.01.2024 at around 23.20 hours, the accused in prosecution of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** restrained defacto complainant (injured) and inflicted cut injuries on the different parts of his body. When the accused attempted to stab on the neck of the injured, he avoided the attack with his hand and thereby, his life was saved. The accused 5 and 6 had beaten the injured with the iron rods and the other accused had beaten him with reapers and iron rods. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. George Mathew the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the FIR would substantiate that no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Actually, it was the accused 1 to ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** 4, who inflicted the grievous injuries on the injured. The accused 5 and 6 are said to have hit the injured with the iron rods. Nonetheless, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2024. The investigation in the case, so far as, the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and also cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the accused in prosecution of their common intention caused the injuries to the defacto complainant/injured. She made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the injured to substantiate the fact that the injured had ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** suffered chip fracture of the ulnar styloid and he was treated as an in-patient. She further contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress. She also submitted that many of the accused are still at large. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.01.2024 and the recovery, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is effected. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the other accused formed an unlawful assembly and the petitioner inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant with a wooden reaper. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2024. 7. 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due ``` 8 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024 ``` to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the overt act alleged against the petitioner, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the ``` 9 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** 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 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 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; ``` 10 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** - 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 of the conditions any - 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 ``` 11 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** 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/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 12 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1084/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 23.01.2024 IN CMP NO. 130 OF 2024 OF JFCM-II, ERNAKULAM Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06-02-2024 OF HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C 333 OF 2024 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```