High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Application allowed; bail granted with specifie...

Rahul and Amal Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday 9:00–11:00 am until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no further offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, or affidavit if none; (v) no departure from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, without permission; (vi) court may cancel bail for violation; (vii) applications for modification of bail conditions to be moved in the lower court; (viii) investigation to continue and recoveries may be effected even while on bail in line with Sushila Aggarwal v. State. The decision follows the principle that detention should not be punitive and emphasizes ongoing investigation with safeguards to prevent abuse.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; bail granted with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rahul
Amal Suresh

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Nikhil Sankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed in Crime No.136/2024 of Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, by Rahul and Amal Suresh. The six-accused are charged with offences under Sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 342, 323, 362, 364A and 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and were arrested on 19.02.2024. The prosecution’s case is that on 18.02.2024, in prosecution of their common aim, the accused followed the victim on two motorcycles, blocked his car, abducted him to a place in Tamil Nadu, and threatened him with a knife to obtain details of his relatives. The petitioners contend their innocence and argue that only non-bailable offences are 364A IPC and Arms Act Section 27, with the other charges being ancillary or misjoined; they emphasise that investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected, and that they have been in judicial custody since 19.02.2024. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and a petitioner with criminal antecedents in three other cases, asserting risk of interference and witness intimidation if released. The court invokes Supreme Court jurisprudence: presumption of innocence until guilt is established (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI); bail as a rule with detention as an exception (Dataram Singh v. State of UP); prolonged detention violating Article 21 (State of Kerala v. Raneef); and allowance of bail conditions (Sushila Aggarwal v. State) to justify a cautious grant. After considering the record and lack of serious injury to the victim, the court allows the bail application with conditions, including bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and compliance with conditions (i)-(viii).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)Section 143 IPCSection 146 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 342 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 362 IPCSection 364A IPCSection 149 IPCSection 27 Arms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule; imprisonment before conviction is an exception
Undertrial detention infringing Article 21 of the Constitution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit they are innocent and contend that the only non-bailable offences cited are Section 364A IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which have been invoked to deny bail. They argue that investigation is complete, recoveries have been made, and there is no justification for continued detention. They rely on the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the norm rather than the exception, especially where there is no serious injury to the victim.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting ongoing investigation and the first petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents in three other cases. The state contends that release on bail could impede investigation and intimidate witnesses, given the nature of the offences and the threats involved.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Supports presumption of innocence and that pre-conviction detention is punitive; bail should not be denied solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of UP	2018 (3) SCC 22	Positive	Affirms that bail is a rule and jail is the exception, with discretion to be exercised judiciously and compassionately.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	2011 (1) SCC 784	Positive	Establishes that indefinite undertrial detention may infringe Article 21; timely conclusion of trial is essential.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Used to justify the court’s authority to impose bail conditions and to continue investigation and recoveries while on bail.

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 Rahul and Amal Suresh 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** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.136/2024 OF Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S:** **1 RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O SULOCHANAN NAIR,GOKULAM,KULATHUMMAL P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695572 2 AMAL SURESH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O SURESH KUMAR,A.A.NIVAS, KULATHUMMAL P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695572** ## **BY ADV S.NIKHIL SANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,HIGH COURT OF KERALA P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.136/2024 of the Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.143, 146, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 342, 323, 362, 364(A), and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners were arrested on 19.02.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 18.02.2024 at around 13 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, followed the victim on two motor cycles and blocked his car and forcefully took him to a place in Tamilnadu and, thereafter, threatened him with a knife for the purpose of giving the details of his relatives. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Nikhil Sankar S., the learned counsel BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 3 appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. The only non-bailable offences are under Section 364A of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. These provisions have been incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners' 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 4 progress. She further stated that the 1[st] petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in three other cases. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them interfering with the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused in prosecution of their common intention had followed the victim and subsequently abducted him and took him to a place in Tamilnadu and threatened him with dangerous weapons. The fact remains that, prima facie the victim has not suffered any serious injuries at the hands of the petitioners as evident from the materials placed on record. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 5 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. 8. 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 the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 6 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. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 7 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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; (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file an affidavit BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 8 to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, without the permission of the jurisdictional court. (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 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 petitioners even while BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 9 the petitioners 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/- rkc/22.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 1902 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1902/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A** **TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO: 136/2024 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** ## **Annexure B** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 27/02/2024** **Annexure C** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN C M.P NO:1089/2024 AND C.M.P NO:1090/2024 DATED 01/03/2024 OF J.F.C.M.-I KATTAKADA**