High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail application allowed; pre-arrest bail grant...

Salman Faris V.K. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 5407 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-07-31
Court Decision / Holding
Application allowed; pre-arrest bail granted on specified conditions, with surrender within 10 days, bond and sureties, cooperation with the IO, restrictions on tampering and inducement, surrender of passport, no new offences, and potential cancellation on violation; observations note this is not a determination on merits.
Final Disposition
Bail application allowed; pre-arrest bail granted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Salman Faris V.K.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • The Inspector of Police, Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.M.ZIRAJ
  • • IRFAN ZIRAJ

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a pre-arrest bail application under section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by Salman Faris V.K., the sole accused in Crime No. 789/2024 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram. The accused is charged with offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulations of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for transporting river sand without permit in a lorry KL 35-5902 on 23.06.2024. The petitioner contends innocence, arguing there is no material to substantiate the charges and that Annexure 2 order of this Court had held that Section 379 IPC may not be attracted in such a context, making custodial interrogation unnecessary and no recovery to be effected. The petitioner’s counsel seeks parity with the Annexure 2 order, asserting the availability of pre-arrest bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes on grounds that investigation is ongoing and granting bail could impede it, though she concedes the petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents. The Court notes that Sections 20 and 23 of the Act are bail-able and that when a special law governs river sand theft, the IPC offence may not apply. Referring to the Annexure 2 order and the principle of parity, the Court holds that valid grounds exist for discretionary relief under Section 438 and grants pre-arrest bail with conditions (surrender within 10 days, bond with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, cooperation with IO, no inducement or tampering, surrender of passport, no additional offences, and possibility of cancellation for violation). The order also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another to justify allowing investigation during bail, and it cautions that observations are not merits determinations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 379 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulations of Removal of Sand Act, 2001

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence; there is no material substantiating the offences. He relies on Annexure 2 order indicating that Section 379 IPC may not attract in this context, contends custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is required, and seeks parity with the earlier order granting pre-arrest bail.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and the possibility of interference; she notes the petitioner has no criminal antecedents but argues that grant of pre-arrest bail could hamper the investigation; she concedes the relevant provisions of law and the nature of the offences already indicate baillable elements under the Act.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited as authority supporting the proposition that investigation may proceed and bail conditions may be imposed during pendency, aligning with the Court’s discretionary grant of pre-arrest bail.

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 Salman Faris V.K. 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 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5407 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.789/2024 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SALMAN FARIS V.K. AGED 28 YEARS SON OF MUSTHAFA, VETTIKKATT, ATHAVANAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676301 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552`** ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.NEEMA T.V. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:2:-_ Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.789/2024 of the Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulations of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 ( in short, the Act). 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 23.06.2024, the accused transported river sand without any permit or pass in a lorry bearing B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:3:-_ registration No.KL 35-5902 by violating the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. P.M. Ziraj., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. By Annexure 2 order, this Court has categorically held that the offence under Section 379 of the IPC may not be attracted in a case of this nature. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:4:-_ application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 7. In Annexure 2 order, this Court has observed that, the offences under Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulations of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 are bailable in nature. It is well settled that when there is a special law covering the question of theft of river sand, the offence under the Indian Penal Code may not apply. 8. It was considering the said question of law, this Court granted the petitioner therein an order of prearrest bail. I find that the petitioner is similarly B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:5:-_ situated to the petitioner in Annexure 2 order and is entitled to parity. 9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the law laid down by this Court in Annexure 2 order, I am of the firm view that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of prearrest bail; subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operates with the Investigating Officer. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. (ii) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, the B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:6:-_ Investigating Officer 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; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:7:-_ effect before said court within the said period; (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 v. State (NCT of** B.A.No.5407 of 2024 _-:8:-_ ## **Delhi) And another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. SD/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/31/7/2024