High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-02Application allowed; bail granted to the petiti...

Muhammed Ali @ Ali v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2017 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-02
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Muhammed Ali @ Ali is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses or evidence; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender if passport, or file affidavit; (v) provide present and permanent address and mobile number; (vi) jurisdictional court may cancel bail for violations; (vii) applications for modification of conditions may be entertained; (viii) Investigating Officer may proceed with further investigation and recoveries even while on bail, per Sushila Aggarwal doctrine; all to be in accordance with law. SD/- C.S. Dias, JUDGE.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; bail granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions and safeguards.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Ali @ Ali

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv P. Anoop (Mulavana)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Neema T. V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Muhammad Ali @ Ali, the third accused, in Crime No.164/2024 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, involving eight accused charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365 and 308 read with Section 149. The petitioner was arrested on 28.02.2024. The case alleges that on 22.02.2024, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused restrained the informant and his friend, assaulted them with a knuckleduster, abducted the informant’s friend in an autorickshaw, and caused grievous injuries to both informants; the first accused allegedly attacked the de facto complainant with a sword stick. The petitioner’s counsel contends a false implication and that offences 365 and 308 were included merely to deny bail; the petitioner has been in custody since 28.02.2024, investigation is practically complete, and recoveries have been effected, making continued detention unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and possible witness intimidation due to the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court notes the presumption of innocence, that bail is the general rule and detention prior to conviction is punitive, and cites Supreme Court authorities (Sanjay Chandra; Dataram Singh) and Kerala High Court authority (State of Kerala v. Raneef) to stress determining factors. After careful consideration, the judge grants bail with stringent conditions, including bond, two sureties, reporting requirements, non-inducement, no tampering with evidence, prohibited offences, address disclosure, passport handling, and potential for cancellation on violation. The order ultimately disposes of the application by allowing bail with conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCIPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365, 308 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail as a rule; detention before conviction is an exception
Undertrial detention infringing Article 21 of the Constitution is a concern
Judicial discretion in bail must be exercised judiciously and compassionately

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated; the inclusion of offences under Sections 365 & 308 IPC appears to be a stratagem to deny bail. With investigation practically complete and recoveries already effected, continued detention serves no justifiable purpose. It is argued that the fundamental right to liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the principle that bail is the norm (not imprisonment) should guide the disposition, particularly since the accused has already spent substantial time in custody and no immediate danger to witnesses or the investigation is shown to justify prolonged detention. The application is supported by references to jurisprudence emphasizing humane considerations and the necessity of a measured approach to bail.

Contentions of Respondents

Opposing counsel submits that investigation is ongoing and the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents, creating a strong likelihood of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence if released. The offences are serious, and ensuring public order and safety requires keeping the accused in custody at this stage. The court is urged to deny bail to prevent possible tampering and to maintain the integrity of the investigation, arguing that the balance of convenience favors continued detention under the circumstances.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 1 SCC 40	Positive	Cited for the proposition that presumption of innocence applies and that imprisonment before conviction is punitive; bail should not be denied solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	[(2018) 3 SCC 22]	Positive	Cited for bail as a rule and detention as an exception; discretion in bail must be exercised judiciously.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	[(2011) 1 SCC 784]	Positive	Cited for the principle that indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners can infringe Article 21.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that investigative authority may continue to investigate and take action even while bail is in effect, within legal bounds.

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 Muhammed Ali @ Ali 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2017 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.164/2024 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMED ALI@ALI, AGED 26 YEARS S/O ABU, METHARUVILAKOM, NEAR VALIYAPALLI, VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695306 ``` ``` BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 2[nd] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.164/2024 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (8 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 365 & 308 r/w.S.149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ('IPC', in short). The petitioners were arrested on 28.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 22.02.2024 at around 20.45 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** restrained the informant and his friend and the accused hit on the informant's head with a knuckleduster, and they forcefully took away his friend in an autorickshaw, and manhandled him and caused grievous injuries to him. The first accused attacked the de facto complainant with a sword stick on his legs, hands and head and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.P.Anoop (Mulavana), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 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. The offences under Sections 365 & 308 of the IPC have been deliberately incorporated solely for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner. In any given ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.02.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. The petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in similar offences. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that, they in prosecution of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the informant and his friend and assaulted them and, thereafter, they abducted the friend ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** of the informant and caused injuries to him. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 28.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. 8. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 9. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 10. 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 to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, and especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.02.2024, that the investigation in the case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** ## **`7`** view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I 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 Trial Court, and as per 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 ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** ## **`8`** 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; (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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2017 of 2024** accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (viii) 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 Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. ``` SD/- ``` **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm2/4/2024