High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-10Application allowed; bail granted with conditions.

MRUTHUL P @ APPU v. State of Kerala & Station House Officer, Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur

Case / Petition Number:BA No.4211 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until the final report is filed; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any; (v) the court may cancel bail on violation; (vi) applications to modify bail conditions may be moved; (vii) IO may investigate and recover as needed under Sushila Aggarwal, even while on bail. The order emphasizes the continuing jurisdiction to ensure fair investigation and compliance with constitutional protections.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mruthul P @ Appu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Station House Officer, Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. A. Vinod

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Mruthul P @ Appu, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No. 236/2024 of the Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur, for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 4 May 2024, around 8:15 PM, the accused assaulted the father of the de facto complainant with an iron stool, causing a fractured jaw and dental injuries. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated; there is no material to attract Section 326 IPC, and the investigation has been completed with recovery effected. The applicant has already remained in judicial custody for about one month. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting that the investigation is ongoing and that the bail objection report records ten prior crimes, suggesting a likelihood of reoffending if released. The court underscores the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, citing Hussainara Khatoon and Dataram Singh to justify grant of bail under compassionate, case-specific scrutiny. After weighing the rival submissions and considering the completed investigation and absence of a compelling case for continued detention, the court allows bail subject to stringent conditions, with a Rs.50,000 bond and two sureties, and supervisory conditions including periodic IO appearances, anti-tampering covenants, passport surrender, and a provision for cancellation of bail on breach, while permitting the IO to continue investigations as needed per the Sushila Aggarwal precedent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326Constitution of India, Article 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Antecedents cannot be the sole ground to deny bail (Hussainara Khatoon)
Right to bail cannot be denied merely due to sentiments of society (Article 21)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no material on record to attract Section 326 IPC, and the allegations are not supported by credible evidence. He has been in judicial custody for about one month; the investigation is complete and recovery has been effected. Given the absence of a substantive charge and the completed investigation, continuing detention is unnecessary. The right to a speedy, fair bail under Article 21 of the Constitution requires a cautious, compassionate approach to bail in appropriate cases. Most of the prior offences alleged in the bail objection report are minor; the petitioner has been acquitted in several cases, and nothing demonstrates a grave threat to society. Hence, the application should be allowed with conditions that ensure accountability while preserving fundamental rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, submitting that the investigation is ongoing and that the bail objection report records ten prior crimes, implying criminal antecedents and a real possibility of reoffending if released. The record of investigation suggests a serious incident requiring caution, and the court must weigh the need to protect the ongoing investigation against the petitioner’s rights. Given the gravity of offences and the history of antecedents, bail should be restrained or denied to safeguard the integrity of the investigation and public safety.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Supports the principle that antecedents are not a sole ground to deny bail.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Affirms that grant of bail is the norm and jail is the exception; guides discretionary balance in bail decisions.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify that recoveries can be effected while on bail per higher court guidance; not a primary basis for the decision.

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 MRUTHUL P @ APPU v. State of Kerala & Station House Officer, Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur 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`** ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4211 OF 2024 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.236/2024 OF Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur`** ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` MRUTHUL P @APPU, AGED 30 YEARS S/O GIREESH BABU, VALIYA MUTTATH HOUSE, PALAYAD P.O, CHIRAKKUNI, KANNUR, PIN - 670661 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.VINOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670106 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`Sr PP Smt Seetha S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.4211 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.4211 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.236/2024 of the Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 9.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 4.05.2024, at around 20.15 hours, the accused beat the father of the de facto complainant on his face with an iron stool and caused injuries to his tooth and fractured his jaw. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.V.A Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S,. the learned Public Prosecutor. 3 BA No.4211 of 2024 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. There is no material to substantiate that the offence under Sec.326 is attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has criminal antecedents since he is involved in ten other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the submission that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. 4 BA No.4211 of 2024 He drew the attention of this Court through the ten crimes that are reported in the bail objection report to substantiate the fact that most of the offences are minor in nature. The first offence is of the year 2012 and last offence is of the year 2024. He submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the crimes. There is no heinous offence so as to rank the petitioner as a habitual offender. Hence, he prayed that the application may be allowed. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioner is alleged to have hit the father of the de facto complainant with an iron stool and he suffered a fracture on his jaw. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. 8. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same 5 BA No.4211 of 2024 shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person. 9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** ., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the 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. 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I 6 BA No.4211 of 2024 am inclined to allow the bail application, 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.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 Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; 7 BA No.4211 of 2024 (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 passports, 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. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the 8 BA No.4211 of 2024 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/- sks/10.6.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**