Sanu Salim @ Sanofar v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 616 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1657/2023 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 3415/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ``` ``` SANU SALIM @ SANOFAR AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SALIM, KHAYAS MANZIL, PALLIMUKKU, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695306 ``` ``` BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.616 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.1657/2023 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324, 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; around 10 p.m., on 10.12.2023, when the accused were at the KTDC Beer parlour, Vakkom, the de facto complainant overheard the accused speaking that they were involved in Crime No.1650/2023 of the same Police Station. When the de facto complainant approached the accused and attempted to make enquiries about the crime, the accused escaped in their car. The de facto complainant ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.616 of 2024** immediately passed the information to the Police Station and the police party followed the car and apprehened the accused. Then, the accused caused damages to the vehicle and inflicted injuries to the de facto complainant and party. The de facto complainant sustained a lacerated wound of 12x2 cm on his scalp and another lacerated wound of 15x2 cm on the left aspect of his scalp. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. In fact, the petitioner himself had sustained injuries in the incident as evidenced by Annexure C FIR, which was registered at the instance of his mother. The ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.616 of 2024** petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2023, but his arrest was recorded only on 12.12.2023. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. He is involved in other cases. The petitioner had caused grievous injuries to the de facto complainant. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. It would also hamper with the full and proper investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an analysis of the materials placed on record, it can be seen that the petitioner was arrested on the intervening night of 10 and 11 of December, 2023. The **B.A. No.616 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` prosecution case is that, the petitioner and other accused had caused damage to the vehicle of the de facto complainant and also caused injuries to him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. 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 for a period of one month or till the final ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.616 of 2024** report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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; ``` 7 ``` **B.A. No.616 of 2024** (v) 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. (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) 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/- ``` rmm/31/1/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.616 of 2024** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 616/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-APHOTOCOPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO.1657/2023 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION. Annexure-BFREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2024 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3415/2023 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure-CPHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1658/2023 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION. ```