High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeGranted

Sajeevan M. B. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date
2024-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
Application Allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions: surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days; if arrested, produced before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender; bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; passport surrender if any; cooperation with investigation; no witness intimidation or other offences on bail; possible cancellation of bail on violation; applications to modify bail conditions to be filed before the court below. The order also permits ongoing investigation and potential recoveries as per Supreme Court guidance in Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition
Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sajeevan M. B.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sudeep Aravind Panicker
  • • A. S. Dileep

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Sajeevan M. B., accused in Crime No. 163/2024 of Karimkunnam Police Station, Idukki, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 CrPC. The alleged offences are under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 323 (hurt), 324 (voluntary causing hurt with a weapon), and 452 (house trespass). The prosecution case claims that on 18 February 2024 the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant’s rented house, abused him, and assaulted him with a stick and by his hands, causing injuries to the left shoulder, eye and abdomen. The prosecution contends custodial interrogation is necessary and points to the ongoing investigation and medical records. The petitioner contends innocence, false implication, and willingness to cooperate; he asserts the defacto complainant is a wanderer and habitual offender with no prior criminal record. After hearing arguments, the court notes the accident register and wound certificate show only abrasions and no weapon, and observes custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is required. Bail is granted subject to stringent conditions including surrender within ten days, appearance on arrest, bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, passport surrender if any, cooperation with investigation, and refraining from witness intimidation; breach may lead to cancellation. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another for guidance on bail conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defacto complainant is described as a wanderer and habitual offender; the case is being pursued to wreak vengeance rather than for truth. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is willing to comply with stringent conditions and cooperate with the investigation. He contends that custodial interrogation is unnecessary in light of the material on record and that there is no recovery of weapons. The applicant seeks to be released on bail with conditions ensuring cooperation and safeguarding the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail, arguing that the investigation is ongoing and custodial interrogation is necessary. The accident register and wound certificate are cited to show injuries; the possibility of continued investigation and the risk of interference with witnesses are highlighted. The State contends that releasing the accused on bail could impede the investigation and overall prosecution.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to align with Supreme Court guidelines on bail conditions and ongoing investigation while on bail, supporting the court’s decision to grant bail with conditions.

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 Sajeevan M. B. 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.163/2024 OF Karinkunnam Police Station, Idukki** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.177 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONER/S:** **SAJEEVAN M. B. AGED 43 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MANIMALAYIL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA P.O., MANAKKAD, IDUKKI, PIN - 685583** **BY ADVS. SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER A.S.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SRI CSS HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.163/2024 of the Karimkunnam Police Station, Idukki, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 18.02.2024 at around 20 hours, the accused had trespassed into the rented house of the defacto complainant and abused him and hit him on his left shoulder, below the right eye and abdomen using a stick and his hands. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Sudeep Aravind Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 3 Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The defacto complainant is a wanderer and a habitual offender. It is only to wreak vengeance on the petitioner that the present complaint has been filed. The petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the investigation is in progress. He made available the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant. He stated that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, the application may be dismissed. BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 4 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the allegations against the petitioner is that he trespassed into the rented house of the defacto complainant and abused him and, thereafter, hit him on his left shoulder, right eye and also on his abdomen. An evaluation of the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant dated 19.02.2024 issued by the District Hospital, Thodupuzha, would substantiate that the defacto complainant had only suffered abrasions on different parts of his body. Moreover, there is no weapon seen used, so as to effect recovery. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and especially after analysing the accident register cum wound certificate of the defacto complainant, I hold that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, I am of the view that the BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 5 petitioner is entitled to be released on bail subject to the condition that he co-operates with the investigation. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (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 shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 6 execution of the bond; v) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; vi). The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vii). The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. viii). 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. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (x) Needless to mention, it would be well within the BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 7 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** rkc/03.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2449 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2449/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO. 163 OF 2024 OF KARIMKUNNAM POLICE STATION** **Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 IN CRL. M.C. 177/2024 ISSUED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA**