Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeGranted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under...

Sajo Peter v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Angamaly Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 1881 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. DIAS
Judgment Date
2024-03-26
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed with pre-arrest bail subject to stringent conditions: i) surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week; ii) on arrest, production before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender; iii) bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for like amount; iv) petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation; v) petitioner not to intimidate witnesses or interfere with investigation; vi) petitioner not to involve in any other offence while on bail; vii) court may cancel bail on breach and consider deletion/modification of bail conditions; ix) IO may investigate and effect recoveries if necessary, in keeping with Sushila Aggarwal and related authorities; x) observations in the order are for deciding the application, not a merits adjudication; the bench notes single-judge disposition.
Final Disposition
Granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC, subject to specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sajo Peter

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Advocate Jaison Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Shynimol V O, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Sajo Peter, the third accused in Crime No. 372/2024 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam. The FIR alleges offences punishable under sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an incident on 08.02.2024 at around 9:30 hours in which the first accused verbally abused the defacto complainant and assaulted him with a harrow, the second accused beat him with an iron section, and the third accused allegedly confined him. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated; there is no specific overt act attributed to him by the FIR, and the gravest injuries appear to have been inflicted by accused nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution contends that the investigation is ongoing and that treatment records show grievous injuries, though there was concession that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner to attract sections 326 or 308 IPC. The learned Judge, after considering rival submissions and the record, held that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and granted pre-arrest bail subject to stringent conditions, including surrender within a week and bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, compliance with bail conditions, and potential cancellation for breach. The order notes that it is not an expression on merits and cites Sushila Aggarwal-type principles and related authorities.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Recoveries and investigations may be carried out by the Investigating Officer even after grant of bail (as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal).
  • Bail can be granted with stringent conditions and breach may lead to cancellation of bail (bail jurisprudence / general doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is innocently implicated and has no specific overt act attributed to him. The First Information Report suggests that the grievous injuries were caused by accused nos. 1 and 2, with the petitioner having no weapon or direct involvement. He asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that there is no recovery to be effected from him. He seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, subject to standard conditions, including surrender to the IO within a week, bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and assurance not to misuse bail or commit other offences. The counsel emphasizes that the allegations against him are vague regarding any overt act by him, and that the balance of convenience and risk favors bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is ongoing and that the medical records show grievous injuries implying involvement by the first two accused. She concedes that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner to attract sections 326 and 308 IPC, but argues that the overall circumstances and ongoing investigation warrant careful consideration of bail. She emphasizes the need to ensure cooperation with investigation and to prevent interference with evidence or witnesses, while maintaining that the case should not be trivialized by premature release. The opposite party highlights the seriousness of the offences and the need to balance liberty with public interest and ongoing investigative requirements.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal—PositiveCourt cites and applies the principle from Sushila Aggarwal to permit investigation and recoveries while a person is on bail.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663Mentioned OnlyCited in connection with bail guidelines but not analyzed in detail; used to support the reference to Sushila Aggarwal’s principle.

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 Sajo Peter v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Angamaly Police Station 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.372/2024 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CR NO.372 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SAJO PETER, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. PETER C.V., CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683572. ``` ``` BY ADV JAISON JOSEPH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , ANGAMALY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683572`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`PP SMT SHYNIMOL V O`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C. S. DIAS, J. ## ================= B.A No. 1881 of 2024 ================= Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2024 ## O R D E R The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.372/2024 of the Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (3 in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution allegation is that; on 08.02.2024, at around 9.30 hours, the first accused had verbally abused the defacto complainant ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` and fisted on his head using a harrow. Thereafter, the second accused beat the defacto complainant with an iron section and the third accused confined him wrongfully. Subsequently, the second accused beat the defacto complainant on his shoulder and on his back, and the defacto complainant fell down. Then, the first accused hit the defacto complainant on his abdomen and he suffered a fracture on his nasal bone and his teeth got dislocated. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Jaison Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shynimol V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of First ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` Information Report would substantiate that the offences under Section 326 and 308 will not be attracted as against the petitioner. The specific overt act is alleged against the accused 1 &2 who inflicted the injuries on the defacto complainant with weapons. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner may be grant an order of pre arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She made available the treatment discharge summary of the defacto complainant issued by the Little Flower Hospital, Angamly, to show the nature of injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the grievous injuries were inflicted by the accused Nos.1 & 2 and that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner so as to attract the offences under section ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 326 & 308 of the IPC. 7. On anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submission made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the facts that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner so as to attract the offences under Section 326 and 308, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: - i. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today. ii. In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv. 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; v. The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` vi. The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. vii. 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. viii. Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. ix. 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 ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. x. Any observations made in this order is only for the purpse of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by the Courts. Sd/- ## C.S. DIAS, JUDGE S.M.K. ``` B.A.No.1881 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1881/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.514 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ```