RIVAJ P.V v. STATE OF KERALA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2023-03-15
Court Decision / Holding: The petition stands allowed. The accused is granted regular bail on the following conditions: (i) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) no intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and weekly IO visits for two months; (iii) not to leave India without court permission; (iv) surrender of passport, if any, within 7 days; (v) not to engage in any other offence during the currency of bail, with violation allowing cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Granted bail with stringent conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rivaj P.V

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Muhammed Shafi
• T. Rasini Ayisha
• Afrin A.V.K.

Counsels for Respondents

• P G Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rivaj P.V., the first accused in Crime No. 625/2022 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court seeking regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation stemmed from an incident on 27 September 2022 when the accused allegedly restrained and assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod, inflicting injuries and causing the robbery of the complainant’s mobile phone valued at about Rs 17,000. The FIR invoked IPC sections 341, 323, 392, 506(i) and 500, read with Section 34. The petitioner contended innocence and argued that the case is politically motivated, pointing to his involvement as an active worker of the Muslim Youth League and to alleged inappropriate messages sent by the complainant to his wife. He submitted that he has been in custody since 30 December 2022 and urged for bail on grounds of lack of direct evidence linking him to the actual violence, the possibility of coercion, and the need to attend to personal and political commitments. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the recovered mobile and alleging the petitioner’s history of substantial criminal activity (including numerous cases under various IPC sections) and contending release would endanger witnesses and obstruct investigation. After considering the custody period (roughly 75 days), the nature of the offences, and antecedents, the court granted bail under stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with authorities and prevention of further offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 341IPC 323IPC 392IPC 506(i)IPC 500Section 34 IPCKAAPAPDPP Act Sec.3(2)ES Act Sec.3ES Act Sec.5

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and asserts that the allegations are false and politically motivated, emphasizing his role as an active Muslim Youth League worker. He argues the alleged facially criminal conduct stems from disputed domestic issues and prior disagreements with the defacto complainant. Citing the 75 days of custody, he seeks bail on grounds that there is no direct, unimpeachable evidence establishing culpability at this stage and that continuing detention would be unnecessary, especially given the possibility of rehabilitation and compliance with conditions. He requests the court to consider bail with stringent terms to ensure cooperation with investigation and to prevent interference with witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, counters bail on grounds of serious offences and the likelihood of reoffending if released. It highlights the recovery of the complainant’s mobile phone and asserts the accused’s history of criminal activity, citing involvement in around twenty cases across multiple jurisdictions, including serious offences like robbery, attempt to commit bodily harm, and other violent acts. It argues that bail could facilitate further crimes and compromise the investigation, and stresses the need to maintain custody to protect public order and ensure a fair trial.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 210 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.625/2022 OF PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED** RIVAJ P.V, AGED 38 YEARS S/O KHALID, NAZEEMA MANZIL, KORAN PEEDIKA, PARIYARAM AMSOM, NOW RESIDING AT UNDAPPARAMBA, THALIPPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DT., PIN – 670141. BY ADVS. M.MUHAMMED SHAFI T.RASINI AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K. ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. P G MANU, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2023, THE COURT ON 15.03.2023, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.210/2023 2 ## _**A. BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ _**================================** B.A.No.210 of 2023_ _================================ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2023_ ## _**O R D E R**_ Regular bail plea at the instance of the 1st accused in Crime No.625/2022 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, Kannur . is the crux of this petition 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the . case diary as such 3. The prosecution case is that at about 18.30 hours on 27.09.2022, the accused herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, assaulted him and inflicted injuries to him using an iron rod with intention to kill him and thereafter the mobile phone belonged to the defacto complainant worth Rs.17,000/- was robbed away. Pursuant to this occurrence, crime alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506(i) and 500 B.A.No.210/2023 3 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. According to him, initially anticipatory bail application was filed the with the 2nd accused as by petitioner along per B.A.No.8805/2022, and this Court dismissed the bail plea at the instance of the petitioner while allowing that of the 2nd accused. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested in this crime on 30.12.2022 and has been in custody thereafter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is an active worker of Muslim Youth League and he had been implicated in many politically motivated cases. It is submitted that the allegations are false and the defacto complainant used to send obscene messages to the wife of the petitioner and the same was questioned by the petitioner. Difference of opinion arose out of the defacto complainant and the 1st accused, led to registration of this crime. Highlighting the petitioner’s custody B.A.No.210/2023 4 from 30.12.2022 and progress of the investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for grant of bail. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed bail on the submission that the mobile phone worth Rs.17,000/- belonged to the defacto complainant was robbed by the accused herein with intention to get his personal details and to send obscene messages to the friends and relatives of the defacto complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a hard core criminal and he has involvement in 20 crimes at present. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person involved in political crimes alone, could not be justified by the list of cases he got involved, inclusive of offences under Sections 365, 452, 330, 307 etc. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed bail on the ground that if the petitioner would be released on bail, he would repeat similar crimes and therefore his trial shall be completed keeping him in B.A.No.210/2023 5 custody. 6. In this connection, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in seven crimes, the petitioner was acquitted. The following are the antecedents of the petitioner reported: **==> picture [36 x 292] intentionally omitted <==** “In Pariyaram Medical College Police Station - i. Cr.No.235/2011 u/s 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC; - ii. Cr.No.143/13 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 IPC; iii. Cr.No.177/2013 u/s 143, 147, 353, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 149 IPC; iv. Cr.No.119/2015; v. Cr.No.135/15 KAAPA; vi. Cr.No.13/2020 u/s 447, 427 IPC; - vii. Cr.No.649/2020 u/s 342, 365, 395 IPC; - viii. Cr.No.654/20 u/ 107 Cr.P.C ## In Taliparamba Police Station - ix. Cr.No.54/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC; x. Cr.No.55/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 332, 435, 427 r/w 149 IPC, Sec.3(2) - of PDPP Act and 3 & 5 of ES Act; **==> picture [36 x 45] intentionally omitted <==** - xi. Cr.No.57/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 r/w 149 IPC; - xii. Cr.No.58/09 u/ 143, 147, 148, 457, 435, 427 r/w 149 IPC; B.A.No.210/2023 6 xiii. Cr.No.60/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 427, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC; xiv. Cr.No.706/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 395, 427 r/w 149 IPC & Sec.3(2) of PDPP Act; **==> picture [36 x 76] intentionally omitted <==** xv. Cr.No.845/2010 u/s 143, 147, 353, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 149 IPC. In Payanangadi Police Station xvi. Cr.No.33/09 u/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 IPC; xvii. C.R.No.11/2011 U/S 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 354, 452, 506 IPC; xviii. Cr.No.14/2011 u/s 308, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341 IPC; In Tirur Police Station, Malappuram district xix. Cr.No.975/2020 u/s 451, 394 r/w 34 IPC.” 7. It is true that in some crimes, the accused was acquitted. However, his involvement in repeated crimes of serious nature as could be read out from the nature of offences extracted herein above could not be viewed lightly. It is relevant that the petitioner was detained under KAAPA| during 2015 and proceedings initiated under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C and the said proceedings dropped on 08.12.2020. Thus it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has no respect to law. In this case, the recovery of B.A.No.210/2023 7 the mobile phone as well as motor bike were already effected. Therefore, in consideration of his custody from 31.12.2022 (75 days) and the progress of the investigation, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail on imposing stringent conditions and one among the conditions is that the petitioner shall not involve in any other crime during the currency of bail hereby granted and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. 8. In the result, the petition stands allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i. Accused/petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned. ii. Accused/petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. He shall visit the Investigating B.A.No.210/2023 8 Officer on every Monday in between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months and also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. iii. Accused/petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the jurisdictional court. iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within 7 days from the date of his release, before the trial court. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit in this regard on the date of execution of the bond or within 3 days thereafter. v. Accused/petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. _Sd/-_ ## _**(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_