High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-03Bail applications disposed: accused 1 and 2 den...

Muhammed Shah and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: The Court held that accused 1 and 2 are not entitled to pre-arrest bail, as there are specific overt acts and injuries with weapons, warranting custodial interrogation and further investigation. Conversely, accused 3 and 4 are granted pre-arrest bail on the following conditions: (i) surrender before IO within 10 days; (ii) production before jurisdictional court on surrender; (iii) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (iv) surrender of passports (if any) or an affidavit in lieu; (v) cooperation with investigation and availability for interrogation; (vi) not to intimidate witnesses or commit further offences; (vii) no involvement in other offences while on bail; (viii) court may cancel bail for violations; (ix) applications for modification of bail conditions may be filed; and (x) to allow continued investigation even on bail as per Supreme Court guidance (Sushila Aggarwal).
Final Disposition: Bail applications disposed: accused 1 and 2 denied pre-arrest bail; accused 3 and 4 granted pre-arrest bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Shah
Shahanas
Sadakkath
Muhammed Rafi

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Abhilash S. Francis

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed in the High Court of Kerala by four accused in Crime No.356/2024 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam, challenging their pre-arrest detention. The petition, heard by a Single Judge, contends that the petitioners (Muhammed Shah, Shahanas, Sadakkath, and Muhammed Rafi) are innocent and have been falsely implicated, allegedly due to animosity and at the instance of a police officer elder sister of the defacto complainant. It is asserted that no custodial interrogation is necessary, there is no recovery to be effected, and the petitioners are law-abiding with no criminal antecedents. The prosecution alleges that the accused committed offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 (the latter read with 34) during a confrontation at the crash site on 16.03.2024, with 1st and 2nd accused allegedly assaulting the injured using a key chain and a sharp object, causing a nasal bone fracture and other injuries, while the 3rd and 4th accused also joined in the altercation. The court notes treatment records showing injuries and considers overt acts against accused 1 and 2 versus lack of overt acts against accused 3 and 4. The decision ultimately denies pre-arrest bail to accused 1 and 2 but grants pre-arrest bail to accused 3 and 4 on strict conditions, emphasizing cooperation with investigation, surrender, and safeguarding conditions for bail. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal for guiding principles on bail conditions and recoveries during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCIPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 r/w 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 — principle that recoveries can be effected during bail and that bail can be conditioned with adequate safeguards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend innocence and false implication, asserting they were not driving the vehicle and that there was no necessity for custodial interrogation. They submit that the alleged injuries stem from a scuffle that occurred as others tried to intervene, and that there is no specific overt act by accused 3 and 4. They urge that they are law-abiding citizens with no antecedents and that the gravity of the offense does not alone justify custodial detention at the pre-arrest stage; they seek pre-arrest bail with appropriate conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State asserts that accused 1 and 2 caused injuries with a weapon and had overt acts forming a common unlawful assembly; treatment records corroborate the seriousness of injuries. They argue that custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation and that accused 3 and 4 lack overt acts against them, but should still be subject to bail considerations with safeguards. The court should thus impose conditions and ensure cooperation and no witness intimidation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify recoveries during bail and to impose conditioned bail in line with Supreme Court guidelines.

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 Shah and Others 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.356/2024 OF Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 MUHAMMED SHAH AGED 27 YEARS KAYIPURATHU, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 690522 2 SHAHANAS AGED 24 YEARS KAYIPURATHU, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 690522** **3 SADAKKATH AGED 51 YEARS KAYIPURATHU, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 690522 4 MUHAMMED RAFI AGED 24 YEARS BUSHRA MANZIL, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, SOORANADU SOUTH, PATHARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 690522** **BY ADV ABHILASH S.FRANCIS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 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 petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.356/2024 of the Sooranad Police Station, Kollam, registered against them, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 16.03.2024, at around 11.45 hours, while the younger sister of the defacto complainant was driving her car, it hit against a mini lorry. Then, the defacto complainant and his younger brother, named Rajesh reached the spot to enquire about the accident. At that time, the defacto complainant's elder brother, named Mohanan Pillai, reached the spot. Immediately, the 1[st] accused abused him and fisted him with a key chain, and he suffered a nasal bone fracture. The 2[nd] accused also hit him with a sharp BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 3 object on his head and caused an injury. The accused 3 and 4 also went to the spot and attacked the defacto complainant and his younger brother with their hands. The injured were taken to the hospital. There are other eleven identifiable accused involved in the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Abhilash S.Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of the elder sister of the defacto complainant, who is a Police officer. In fact, it was another sister of the defacto complainant who was driving the car. It is due to her negligence the car hit on the rear portion of the mini lorry. When the defacto complainant and his relatives attempted to manhandle the lorry driver, the petitioners intervened the matter. It is out of the said BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 4 animosity that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused and the offence under Section 326 of the IPC has been incorporated. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that there are specific overt acts against the accused 1 and 2, who had used a key chain and a sharp object and assaulted the defacto complainant's brother (injured) who suffered injuries. She made available the treatment certificate of the injured, who was treated at the Meditrina Hospitals, Kollam on 03.04.2024, which shows that he suffered a scalp wound measuring 1 x 1 centimeter on the occipital region and also suffered a multiple facial bone fracture noted on the left nasal bone, left maxillary sinus anterior and lateral wall with facial edema. He was treated as an inpatient for BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 5 two days and discharged from the hospital on the second day. She submitted that accused 1 and 2 had used a key chain and a sharp weapon and caused the injuries. However, she did not dispute the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the accused 3 and 4, so as to attract the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. She stated that the custodial interrogation of the accused 1 and 2 is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper and full investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an analysis of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt acts are alleged against the accused 1 and 2 in Annexure A1 FIR that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly and the 1[st] accused assaulted the injured with a key chain and fisted him on his nose which had resulted in his nasal bone fracture. Similarly, the 2[nd] accused also hit the injured with some object on his head. Prima facie, on an evaluation of the treatment record BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 6 issued by the Meditrina Hospital, it is seen that the prosecution version is corroborated. Therefore, considering the fact that there are specific overt acts alleged against the accused 1 and 2 and that they used weapons to assault the injured, I am of the view that their custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, I hold that the accused 1 and 2 are not entitled to an order or pre-arrest bail and their applications have to be rejected. On the contrary, since there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4, I hold that they are entitled for orders of pre-arrest bail, subject to the condition that they co-operate with the investigation. In the result; i) The applications filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 / accused 1 and 2 is dismissed. ii) The applications filed by the petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 are allowed on the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 7 i) The petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of arrest of petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (iv) The petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; v) The petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 shall co- BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 8 operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; vi). The petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vii). The petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. viii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the applications for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (x) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 9 matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners 3 and 4 / accused 3 and 4 even while they are 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** rkc/03.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2502 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2502/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **AnnexureA1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.356/2024 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION DATED 18.03.2024**