High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Petition allowed; bail granted to the applicant...

Sandeep.K v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays and as required; (ii) refrain from inducement/threats to witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without court permission; (vi) court may cancel bail on breach; (vii) apply for modification/deletion of bail conditions; (viii) Investigating Officer may, if necessary, continue to investigate and effect recoveries under the guidance of Sushila Aggarwal. The order reflects the Court’s cautious approach, balancing presumption of innocence with safeguarding the investigation and ensuring compliance with bail conditions.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; bail granted to the applicant with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sandeep.K

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv K. Deepa (Payyanur)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Seetha S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the fourth accused in Crime No. 1265/2023 of the Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 r/w Section 149 IPC. The petitioner, Sandeep.K, was arrested on 26 February 2024. The prosecution alleges that on 19 November 2023, near Gayathri Auditorium, Kollam, about 15 persons, including accused 1 to 3, attacked the defacto complainant and friends with dangerous weapons such as a nanjakku, iron pipe and beer bottle, causing grievous injuries; collectively they are implicated in the said offences. The petitioner contends innocence, alleging false implication, and argues that the offence under Section 307 would not be attracted; the investigation is largely complete, and recovery has been effected, with Annexure A4 showing surrender before the Investigating Officer. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing a specific overt act and ongoing investigation, but concedes that accused 1–3 have already been granted bail (Annexure A3). Relying on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court emphasizes presumption of innocence and that bail is the rule, detention the exception. The court grants bail to the petitioner on Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions, including regular appearances, non-interference with witnesses, prohibition on new offences, surrender of passport, non-issuance beyond jurisdiction, and possible modification or cancellation on breach, with recoveries permissible under Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule and detention is the exception
Right to life under Article 21 and protection against indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners
Courts may permit recoveries and supervise bail conditions in light of prevailing Constitutional principles (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that he is innocent and falsely implicated; the alleged involvement of the applicant in the alleged overt act under Sec. 307 IPC is denied; the investigation is substantially complete, with recovery effected, and the applicant has surrendered as per Annexure A4. The bail prayer is sought on the ground that detention is unnecessary in view of the ongoing investigation and the prior grant of bail to accused 1–3.

Contentions of Respondents

The State authorities oppose bail on the ground of a specific overt act—hitting the injured with a stone—and ongoing investigation; the possibility of interference with the investigation on release. However, they concede that accused 1–3 have been granted bail under Annexure A3.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 1 SCC 40	Positive	Cited for the principle that the presumption of innocence applies and that pre-trial detention should not be based solely on prior conduct; bail is favored where justified.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Cited for the rule that bail is the general rule and detention is the exception; discretion must be exercised judiciously and compassionately.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Cited to emphasize that undue detention of undertrial inmates infringes Article 21 rights when trial delays are excessive.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for allowing continued recoveries and functioning of bail supervision during the period of 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 Sandeep.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** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1265/2023 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode PETITIONER/S:** **SANDEEP.K, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SATHYAN,KANIYAM KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MOODADI (P.O), MANDAMANGALAM, MOODADI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN - 673307** ## **BY ADV K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4[th] accused in Crime No.1265/2023 of the Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused (four in number and fourteen identifiable persons) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2024. 2. The prosecution case is that: on 19.11.2023 at about 20.00 hours, while the defacto complainant and his friends were standing near Gayathri Auditorium at Kollam, about 15 persons including the accused 1 to 3 attacked them with dangerous weapons; such as nanjakku, iron pipe and beer bottle and caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant and his friends. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Smt.Deepa K Payyannur, learned counsel BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 3 appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offence under Section 307 will not be attracted against the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.02.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, pursuant to Annexure A4 order, the petitioner had surrendered before the Investigating Officer. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner because he was the BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 4 person who hit the injured with a stone. She submitted that the investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that, by Annexure A3 order, this Court has already enlarged the accused 1 to 3 on bail. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 7. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 5 grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially after going through BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 6 Annexure A3 order passed by this Court in favour of the accused 1 to 3, who have been released on bail on 05.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 7 (ii) 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; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (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 execution of the bond; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, without the permission of the jurisdictional court. - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 8 empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (viii) 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 Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- rkc/22.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 1912 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1912/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.11.2023 OF CRIME NO. 1265/2023 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION; KOZHIKODE.** **Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11.11.2023 OF CRIME NO. 1235/2023 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION; KOZHIKODE REGISTERED U/S.143, 147,341,323 R/W.149 IPC, AGAINST THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND OTHERS.** - **Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023 IN B.A. NO. 11559/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 IN B.A. NO.1111/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 IN CMP NO. 1090/2024 IN CRIME NO.1265/2023 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE; KOYILANDY.**