Salam aged 50 years s/o Kasim v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-05-09
Court Decision / Holding: Bail applications allowed with stringent conditions: release on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, cooperation with investigation, restriction on leaving India without court permission, prohibition on committing similar offences, and potential cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Salam aged 50 years s/o Kasim

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi; Station House Officer, Tanur Police Station, Tanur, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. P. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• T. V. Neema (Public Prosecutor)
• CM Prabhakaran (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Salam, a 50-year-old man and licensed scrap dealer, moved two bail applications under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam challenging orders in Crime Nos. 487/2023 and 481/2023 registered with Tanur Police Station. The prosecution alleged theft of a battery from a tipper lorry, with Salam identified as the second accused and the first accused as the principal culprit, alleging offences under Sections 379 and 413 read with Section 34 IPC. Salam contended that he was falsely implicated, his involvement based on a confession of the first accused, and that he possessed a valid Edarikode Grama Panchayat licence for his scrap business for over 25 years, a licence renewed prior to the alleged incident. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting Salam’s alleged involvement in several cases and the seriousness of the accusations. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges and Salam’s criminal antecedents but stressed that bail is a rule and jail an exception. Relying on Moulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Others and Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement, the court held that bail could be granted with stringent conditions rather than precluding it. Accordingly, bail was allowed with conditions including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance for interrogation, travel restrictions, and a prohibition on committing similar offences; with power to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.Secs. 379, 413 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends non-involvement in the offences; he relies on his long-standing licensed scrap business and asserts that the case is based on the confession of the first accused. He urges that detention is unnecessary given the background and licence; he asks for bail subject to conditions and investigation by authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing serious charges and Salam’s alleged involvement in multiple cases, arguing that release may hinder the investigation and enable tampering with evidence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Moulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and others	(2012) 2 SCC 382	Positive	Cited to reiterate that a bail plea cannot be rejected merely on criminal antecedents; supports the bail grant with conditions.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	(2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, informing the court’s approach to grant of bail.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3598 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCMP 1964/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SALAM AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KASIM, PARITHOLI HOUSE, KODINJI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309 BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676302 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** PP: T V NEEMA **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3599 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCMP 1968/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SALAM AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KASIM, PARITHOLI HOUSE, KODINJI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309 BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, PIN - 676302 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP CM PRABHAKARAN **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code . 2. The petitioner in these bail applications are one and the same and hence, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 487/2023 and Crime No. 481/2023 of Tanur Police Station. 3. The prosecution case is that in 2023, February, the 1[st] accused had committed theft of battery of a Tipper Lorry and the same was received by the 2[nd] accused from **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **4** the 1[st] accused. The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under Secs. 379, 413 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the court below on 27.4.2023. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offences. The 1[st] accused is the main culprit. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is implicated in this case based on a confession statement of the 1[st] accused. It is alleged that he has no connection with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. It is also stated that he has been doing scrap business for the last more than 25 years with valid licence issued by the Edarikode Grama Panchayat. The petitioner produced the copy of the receipt showing the renewal of the licence. Hence, it is stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **5** petitioner is involved in several cases. The petitioner may not be released on bail is the submission of the Public Prosecutor. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and several cases are registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is a licenced scrap businessman and this case is falsely foisted against the petitioner. He produced certain documents to show that he is having the licence as on the date of the alleged commission of offence. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. These are matters to be investigated by the investigating authority. But I am of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true that several cases of similar nature is registered against the petitioner. **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **6** That itself is not a ground to reject the bail. The Apex Court in **Moulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and others** [(2012) 2 SCC 382] observed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, claim of bail cannot be rejected. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the detention period of the petitioner, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. If the petitioner committed similar offences in future, the investigating authority is free to file application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in accordance to law. With that rider, these applications can be allowed. 7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870** ), after considering **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **7** all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or **B.A. Nos. 3598 & 3599 of 2023** **8** promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **SKS**