Rasheed K., Rashid, and Burhanudheen B. v. State of Kerala

1 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 831 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.40/2024 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1RASHEED K,AGED 34 YEARS S/O LATE MAHIN, RASHEED MANZIL, PERIYATTADUKKAM, PANAYAL P.O, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315 2RASHID,AGED 18 YEARS S/O AHAMMED, JIN HOUSE, PALLARAM, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315 3BURHANUDHEEN. B,AGED 28 YEARS S/O BASHEER, SIRAJUDHEEN MANZIL, PERIYATTADUKKAM, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315 BY ADVS. RAHUL SASI NEETHU PREM P.ARDRA MENON ALFIN NADARSHAW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BEKAL POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671318 SMT.SHYNI V.O, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** **Bail Application No. 831 of 2024 ----------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in crime No.40/2024 of the Bekal Police Station, Kasargod, registered against the accused (nine in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 16.1.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 22.30 hours on 13.1.2024, the accused in prosecution of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly and 3 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 attacked the informant. The third accused threw a soda bottle at the informant and he sustained injuries. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Shyni.V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A perusal of the wound certificate substantiates that Sec.308 has been deliberately incorporated to deny the petitioners’ bail. At any rate, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 16.1.2024, which is more than 21 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete 4 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation is in progress. Specific overt act is alleged against the first petitioner/third accused because he was the person who threw the soda bottle on the injured. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the materials placed on record, it is seen that, by Annexure-A5 order, this Court had granted the accused 5 to 9 an order of pre-arrest bail on the specific observation that there was no serious injuries caused to the injured so as to attract the offence under 5 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 Sec.308 of the Indian Penal Code. On going through the accident register-cum wound certificate of the injured dated 3.1.2024, it is seen that he had only pain and swelling over his right elbow. 7. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, particularly the observations made by this Court in Annexure-A5 order, I am of the definite view that petitioners’ continued detention is not necessary especially since they were arrested on 16.1.2024, which is more than 21 days, that the investigation is virtually complete, that the recovery has been effected and the petitioners have no other criminal antecedents. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 6 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 7 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 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 passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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. 8 Bail Application No. 264 of 2024 (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/- sks/5.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**