Sarin Kumar v. State of Kerala and Inspector of Police, Aroor

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-06
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, each for Rs. 50,000, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report, (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses, (iii) no commission of offences while on bail, (iv) surrender of passport (or affidavit if none), (v) providing present and permanent addresses and mobile number, (vi) court may cancel bail on violation, (vii) applications to modify bail conditions may be moved, (viii) Investigating Officer may investigate and recover if necessary as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; bail granted to the petitioner on stipulated conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sarin Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala
Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Pramod
• Biju
• Vigneswar Athul M.V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 785 of 2024) by a sole accused in Crime No. 1071/2023 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, charged under sections 324 and 307 IPC. The applicant, Sarin Kumar, was arrested on 17 December 2023 following allegations that on the night of 16 December 2023 he attacked his father with a chopper during a quarrel, causing injuries including two lacerated wounds; the defacto complainant reportedly blocked the attack with his hand. The prosecution contends the accused inflicted injuries while the father attempted to ward off the attack, amounting to grievous hurt and attempted murder, though no fatal injury occurred. The defense submits innocence, claims the complainant has mental derangement, and notes the investigation is nearly complete with the final report filed; the applicant has remained in judicial custody for about 50 days. The High Court, considering the wound certificate, lack of prior criminal antecedents, and near-completion of investigation, holds that continued detention is unnecessary and grants bail with stringent conditions. The order emphasizes accountability through conditions such as regular appearance, non-tampering with witnesses, no new offences, passport surrender (if any), updated addresses, and potential misuse restrictions. It also cites a Supreme Court principle permitting recovery actions by police even while on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 324 IPCSection 307 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, noting the complainant’s alleged mental derangement. He has been in custody since 17.12.2023, the investigation is substantially complete, final report filed, and only two minor injuries are shown by the wound certificate. He seeks bail on grounds of no criminal antecedents and proportional liberty, subject to appropriate conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, stressing that two wounds were inflicted and the accused warded off the attack with his hands; despite no prior antecedents, the gravity of the offence warrants cautious bail considerations. The prosecution does not dispute the completion of investigation but seeks safeguards to prevent tampering and ensure accountability during pretrial detention.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support that recovery actions by the Investigating Officer can be carried out even while the accused is on bail, as recognised in the cited Supreme Court principle.

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** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1071/2023 OF Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SARIN KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O. MAHESWARAN, NAGANEZHATHVEEDU, EZHUPUNNA PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.7, ERAMALLOOR P. O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688537 BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR ATHUL M.V. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE AROOR POLICE STATION, AROOR P. O., ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688534 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.1071/2023 of the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 16.12.2023 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused had an altercation with the defacto complainant – his father – and hacked on his head using a chopper and attempted to kill him. The defacto complainant had blocked the attack with the right hand, but sustained injuries to his right hand finger. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; B.Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 3 Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. It was only because the defacto complainant has some mental derangement, that the incident occurred. At any rate, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.12.2023, which is more than 50 days. The investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the final report has been filed. At any rate, going by the accident cum wound certificate, only two lacerated wounds were caused to the injured. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner had inflicted two wounds on his father. It is only because BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 4 he warded of the attack with his hands, he did not lose his life. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.12.2023 and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 6. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the wound certificate which shows that the injured has suffered two lacerated wounds, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, and the petitioner is without any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 5 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 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 6 (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 furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 7 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/-** **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/06.02.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 785 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 785/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 IN CRL. M. P. NO. 62/2024 ON THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 IN CRL. M. P. NO. 277/2024 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA.