Riyas P., Sakkariya P., Abdul Razak P. v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S.Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-01-24
- Court Decision / Holding
- The application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for a month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports if any; (v) disclosure of present and permanent addresses and mobile numbers to court and IO; (vi) court may cancel bail for violation; (vii) applications to modify bail conditions are allowed; and (viii) IO may proceed with investigation and recoveries even while on bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted; petitioners released on bail with stringent conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Riyas P
- Sakkariya P
- Abdul Razak P
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
- Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • S. Rajeev
- • V. Vinay
- • K. Rakesh
- • Rajesh Babu Chelat
- • M.S. Aneer
- • Prerith Philip Joseph
- • Anil Kumar C.R.
- • K.S. Kiran Krishnan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor (State)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by three accused in Crime No. 809/2023 of Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode, seeking bail in offences including 452, 365, 367, 368, 342, 323, 324, 326, 506, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 27.12.2023. The prosecution alleges that on 12.12.2023 the accused trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons, abducted him in a car, transported him to a two-storey building at Mannilkadvu, and assaulted him with wooden sticks, with threats to kill. The petitioners contend false implication, pointing to a close mediation history between the defacto complainant and the wife of the second accused, allegedly resulting in a settlement; they argue the FIR was registered six days after the incident, suggesting falsity, and that the investigation is nearly complete with recoveries already effected. The Public Prosecutor counters that the first accused remains at large and that bail at this stage would impair the investigation and witness safety, though she concedes no prior criminal antecedents by petitioners. After careful consideration, the court notes the petitioners have been in custody since 27.12.2023, the investigation concerning them is practically complete, and there are no antecedents, and thus grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, sureties, periodic appearance, restrictions on tampering with witnesses, passport surrender, and reporting requirements, citing the principle in Sushila Aggarwal for permissible investigations during bail.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated; there was a mediation due to allegations of an affair between the defacto complainant and the wife of the second accused/first petitioner, leading to a settlement. They urged that the FIR was registered belatedly (18.12.2023 for an incident dated 12.12.2023), raising doubts about the veracity of the case. They argued there are no criminal antecedents, they are in custody only since 27.12.2023, investigation related to them is practically complete, and they are ready to cooperate; thus continued detention is unnecessary and bail should be granted with appropriate conditions.
Contentions of Respondents
The Public Prosecutor argued that the first accused is still at large; granting bail at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation, which requires recovery and possible arrest of the leading suspect. She noted that the petitioners have no prior antecedents but stressed the need to protect witnesses and ensure the investigation progresses until the first accused is apprehended.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited as authority supporting the proposition that investigation and recovery actions can proceed by the IO even when the accused are on bail; used to justify the bail conditions and the court’s approach to ongoing investigation. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Riyas P., Sakkariya P., Abdul Razak P. 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.