Muhammed Agnan R.N. alias Tarzen v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed; the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the specified conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Agnan R.N. alias Tarzen

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saijo Hassan
• Benoj C Augstin
• Aathira Sunny

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Vipin Narayanan - PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Muhammed Agnan R.N. alias Tarzen, accused in Crime No.372/2023 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, for murder (Section 302 IPC) of Santhosh at Ambedkar Stadium near the KSRTC bus stand, on 3 February 2023. The petitioner has been in custody since 19 February 2023, approximately 76 days at the time of hearing. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the gravity of the offence and that the investigation is at a preliminary stage; the petitioner reportedly has involvement in two other cases (Crime Nos. 173/18 under Section 151 Cr.P.C. at Chalakudy PS and 49/2020 under Section 379 IPC at Kuthiyathode PS). The petitioner’s counsel contended that mere involvement in other cases cannot, by itself, justify denial of bail and that the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions, including surrendering to investigation, not leaving the country, and not reoffending. The court, while acknowledging seriousness, reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. & Others (2012) and Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870). It ultimately allowed the bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance as required, restrictions on leaving India without court permission, non-entry into the Ernakulam Central Police Station for two months, and providing residential/address details to the IO, with liability to cancel on breach. The order emphasizes balancing fair trial with effective investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSection 302 IPCCr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail cannot be denied
Basic bail jurisprudence requires that grant of bail should be favored to secure a fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that he has been in custody since 19.02.2023 and is willing to comply with stringent conditions if released on bail. He argued that mere involvement in other cases cannot be a sole ground to deny bail and that the investigation is at a preliminary stage; he sought bail with conditions ensuring cooperation with authorities and preventing flight.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in two other cases and that investigation is at a preliminary stage; there is a risk of non-cooperation and potential threats; hence bail should be refused or strictly conditioned.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. & Others	2012 (2) SCC 382	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that criminal antecedents alone are not a ground to deny bail.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to ensure a fair trial.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3285 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1133/2023 OF ``` ``` JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` MUHAMMED AGNAN R.N. @ TARZEN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. NAZEER KHAN, RAYAMMARAKKAR HOUSE, VELOOPADAM, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 303. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SAIJO HASSAN BENOJ C AUGUSTIN AATHIRA SUNNY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN-PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.3285 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- **B.A.No.3285 of 2023** **------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.372/2023 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 3.02.2023 at 4.00 a.m., the accused committed murder of one Mr.Santhosh by stabbing him with a weapon on his stomach inside Ambedkar Stadium, near K.S.R.T.C. bus stand. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2023 and he is in custody from that day onwards. B.A.No.3285 of 2023 3 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19.02.2023 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if he is released on bail. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from the last 76 days. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in two cases. The petitioner committed serious offences and he may not be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is at the preliminary stage and the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. 5. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody from 19.02.2023 onwards. It is alleged that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.173/18 of Chalakudy Police Station for offence under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. and Crime No.49/2020 B.A.No.3285 of 2023 4 of Kuthiyathode Police Station for offence under Section 379 of IPC. Simply because the petitioner is involved in other cases that itself is not a ground to deny bail to the petitioner. The Apex court in **Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. & Others [2012 (2) SCC 382]** , observed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents the claim of bail cannot be rejected. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not over. If that is a case there will be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limits of the Central Police Station for a period of two months. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions with a rider that if the petitioner violate any of the conditions the investigating officer is free to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court and 5 B.A.No.3285 of 2023 the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders. 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870** ), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court. B.A.No.3285 of 2023 6 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Central Police Station, Ernakulam for a period of two months at the time of executing the bond. The petitioner shall furnish the residential address where he is going to reside along with the phone number to the Jurisdictional Court. The petitioner will give the above details to the B.A.No.3285 of 2023 7 investigating officer also within 7 days from the date of his release. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ak B.A.No.3285 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3285/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:- ``` ``` Annexure 1 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2023 IN C.M.P. NO.1133/2023 IN CRIME NO.372/2023 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE – II, ERNAKULAM. ```