Sanjay Das and Others v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-01-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties of the like amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday for two months or until final report, whichever earlier; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses or evidence; (iii) no committing of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports, if any; (v) any violation may lead to cancellation of bail; (vi) modification/deletion of conditions may be sought; and (vii) the Investigating Officer is empowered to conduct recoveries on information provided by the petitioners, if necessary, as per the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
- Final Disposition
- Bail Granted
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sanjay Das
- Rohit
- Athul M.K
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
- Station House Officer, KunNamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode District
- Shameer T A aged 36 years S/o Mohammed, Thelishi House, Cheruvadi PO, Chullikkaparamb, Kozhikode
- Shanid T A aged 27 years S/o Mohammed, Thelishi House, Cheruvadi PO, Chullikkaparamb, Kozhikode
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.V. Anoop
- • Phijo Pradeesh Philip
- • Anju R S
- • K C Mohamed Rashid
- • Bijitha B Bose
Counsels for Respondents
- • Neema T V
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.963/2023 of KunNamangalラム Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging offences under Sections 365, 341, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 20.11.2023. The prosecution case is that on 15.11.2023 at about 16:30 hours, the accused forcibly compelled the younger brother of the de facto complainant to get into a car near KMCT Engineering College and brutally assaulted him, resulting in grievous injuries. The earlier bail petition was dismissed on the ground that the injured was in a comatose state and cannot record a statement; hospital records later showed discharge on 05.12.2023, leading to the argument that the injured was not in coma. The court notes that the petitioners have been in custody for over 63 days and that the investigation is practically complete with recoveries to be effected if necessary. The Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail, maintaining ongoing investigation. After considering these materials, the Judge concludes that the petitioners are entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions. The order grants bail on bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance, non-interference with witnesses, prohibition against new offences, surrender of passports, and a provision for cancellation or modification of bail if violated. The court also cites a Supreme Court principle via Sushila Aggarwal to permit recoveries on information while on bail.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the earlier denial of bail was founded on an incorrect assumption that the injured victim remained in a comatose state at the time of the earlier proceedings. The hospital record shows discharge on 05.12.2023, which undermines the comatose claim. The petitioners have already undergone custody since 20.11.2023 (63 days) and the investigation is practically complete. They are willing to comply with stringent conditions and pledge to abide by any safety measures. Given the progress of the investigation and the factual evidence, continued detention is unnecessary, and bail with conditions should be granted to enable them to assist in further investigation and to prevent undue hardship.
Contentions of Respondents
The State contended that the injured person was in a comatose state initially, making verification of statements difficult, and that the investigation is still ongoing with a need to effect recoveries. Accordingly, the State urged against granting bail at that stage and emphasized the priority of completing the investigation and ensuring accountability.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | The court relies on the Supreme Court principle cited in Sushila Aggarwal to justify that recoveries may be effected on information supplied by the petitioners even while they are on bail, supporting the imposition of conditions and potential further action within bail. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Sanjay Das and Others 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.