Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted

PRANAV v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 6505/2024
Neutral Citation:2024:KER:60247

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-08-08
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed; Pranav, the 2nd accused, is enlarged on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) non-commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if available; (v) compliance with any further orders; (vi) court below may modify or delete bail conditions; (vii) IO empowered to investigate and recover as permitted by law, including reference to Sushila Aggarwal v. State. The court also notes prior bail orders for co-accused and emphasizes the quasi-private resolution between the parties as a factor in the bail grant.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Pranav

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Yasim
  • Muhammad Hashik

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • JITHIN BABU A
  • • ARUN SAMUEL
  • • ANOOD JALAL K.J.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.R ARUN KRISHNAN
  • • SMT NEEMA T.V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed by the second accused, Pranav, in Crime No.81/2024 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, challenging his detention under BNSS, 2023. The offences alleged include sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2024. The prosecution contends ongoing investigation; the first accused allegedly inflicted stab injuries on the injured, while the second accused’s overt act is not specifically alleged. The petitioner contends innocence, arguing that the only overt act appears to have been by the first accused, and that the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 has been settled out of court, with Annexures-3 and 4 affidavits filed indicating lack of subsisting grievance. The respondents’ counsel acknowledges the affidavits and out-of-court settlement, while the Public Prosecutor notes ongoing investigation and characterizes the petitioner as a habitual offender. The court, after considering the records and rival submissions, finds no specific overt act against the 2nd accused, considers the out-of-court settlement satisfactory, and notes that investigations are nearly complete with recovery effected. Consequently, the court grants bail, imposing bond and several conditions to ensure appearance and non-interference with witnesses, and to prevent tampering with evidence. The order also cites prior bail orders for co-accused as context and relies on a Supreme Court principle permitting ongoing investigation while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 483Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Out-of-court settlement can influence bail decisions (as per the court’s reasoning)
  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 - principle cited regarding investigation during bail

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and disputes the factual basis of the allegations, pointing out that the First Information Report discloses the overt act as being attributable only to the 1st accused, with no explicit overt act attributed to the 2nd accused. He has been in judicial custody since 16.07.2024 and the investigation is nearly complete with recovery effected. The matter between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 has been settled out of court, supported by Annexures-3 and 4 (affidavits) declaring no subsisting grievance. The petitioner argues that there is no ongoing risk of witness tampering or interference, and that the balance of convenience favors granting bail, especially since co-accused have already been granted bail in earlier orders (BAIL Nos. 1817/2024 and 4517/2024). The defense asserts the 2nd accused’s lack of involvement in the specific alleged acts and urges release on bail subject to standard conditions to enable the accused to assist with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution submits that the investigation in Crime No.81/2024 is ongoing and that the petitioner is a habitual offender, necessitating caution in granting bail. The State contends that although there has been an out-of-court settlement, the investigation must run its course, and the accused must not misuse the liberty granted on bail. The respondents’ counsel also notes that the out-of-court settlement does not automatically absolve all co-accused from potential liability and that there remains a legitimate concern about the possibility of recourse to intimidation or interference with witnesses. The respondent’s position also emphasizes adherence to legal standards for bail while acknowledging prior bail orders for other accused in similar circumstances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to support the principle that the Investigating Officer may continue to investigate and effect recoveries even when the accused is on bail; used to justify the bail conditions and ongoing investigational authority.

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 PRANAV 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.

``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6505 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.81/2024 OF Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:`** ``` PRANAV, AGED 30 YEARS SON OF SETHUMADHAVAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL ANOOD JALAL K.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 ``` ``` 2YASIM, AGED 25 YEARS S/O SALIM, PARAYAMVALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P O, VALAKKAZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680702 ``` ``` 3MUHAMMAD HASHIK, AGED 26 YEARS ``` ``` S/O MAJEED, PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P O, VALAKKAZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680702 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R ARUN KRISHNAN (R2 & R3) ``` ``` SMT NEEMA T.V (SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 08[th] day of August, 2024** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’), by the 2[nd] accused in crime No.81 of 2024 of the Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to on judicial custody 16.07.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 04.02.2024, at around 22:30 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friend named Aashik, and the 2[nd] accused pulled down the de facto complainant and his friend. Thus, the 1[st] ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` accused stabbed the friend of the de facto complainant on his abdomen with the knife and he suffered grievous injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Jithin Babu A, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.K.R Arun Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3/ de facto complainant and injured. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the First Information Report would show that the overt act is only alleged against the 1[st] accused, who inflicted the stab injuries on the injured. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` effected. Furthermore, subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 have been settled out of court. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed Annexures-3 and 4 affidavits, stating that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. She stated that she is not aware of the out of court settlement arrived at between the parties. The petitioner is a habitual offender. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 vouched for their signatures on Annexures-3 and 4 affidavits. He stated that the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 has been settled out of court, and respondents 2 and 3 have no objection in the petitioner being enlarged on bail. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` 7. On an overall consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the 2[nd ] accused, the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have been settled out of court and respondents 2 and 3 have filed Annexures-3 and 4 affidavits before this Court, stating that they have no objection, in the petitioner being enlarged on bail, and this Court has already enlarged accused 1 and 3 on bail as per the orders in B.A Nos.1817 of 2024 and 4517 of 2024, and furthermore, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` 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 Officer on - Investigating 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 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 ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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/- ``` ``` C.S.DIAS, JUDGE. ``` ``` JJ ``` ``` 2024:KER:60247 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.6505/2024`** ``` APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6505/2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER’s ANNEXURES`** |**`Annexure`**|**`1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO. 81/2024`**| |---|---|---| |||**`OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 197/2024 OF`**| |||**`KATTOOR POLICE STATION.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`3`**|**`THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02/08/2024 SWORN BY THE 2ND`**| |||**`RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`4`**|**`THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02/08/2024 SWORN BY THE 3RD`**| |||**`RESPONDENT/INJURED.`**| ``` //true copy// PA TO JUDGE ```