High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-04Bail Granted

Shahul Midad v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO.3102 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner Shahul Midad is to be released on bail on a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as required, shall cooperate with the investigation, shall not leave India without court permission, shall not commit any similar offence, and if violated the bail can be cancelled. Prosecution and the victim may approach the jurisdictional court to cancel bail if conditions are violated.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shahul Midad

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Pattambi Police Station, Pattambi, Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harikrishnan S. P.
• Prijith Ajay
• Ben Jose
• Manjunath Menon
• P. Martin Jose
• Sachin Jacob Ambat
• R. Githesh
• Anna Linda V. J.
• S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
• Thomas P. Kuruvilla

Counsels for Respondents

• Neema T.V. (Smt.), Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed in this High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Shahul Midad, the fifth accused in Crime No. 830/2021 of Pattambi Police Station. The case concerns a December 28, 2021 incident in which the accused and others allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant with weapons, triggering offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. Petitioner has been in custody since April 10, 2022. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, injuries to the legs allegedly caused by him are not supported by medical evidence, and that the major allegations involve other accused. The Public Prosecutor argued that the offences alleged are serious (including sections 326 and 307 IPC) and investigation is at a preliminary stage. The court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and also referred to Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. to address the relevance of other crimes to bail considerations. Balancing the facts, detention period and overall circumstances, the court granted bail with conditions: Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, no adverse inducements, no leaving India, and a restraint on committing similar offences, with a power to cancel bail for violations.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Sec. 439IPC Sec. 143IPC Sec. 147IPC Sec. 148IPC Sec. 324IPC Sec. 326IPC Sec. 307 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, there is no injury to the legs allegedly caused by him, and the principal allegations pertain to the other accused. They contended contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and pointed out that the investigation is at a preliminary stage; the petitioner has already been in custody since 10.04.2022. It was urged that there is no material to connect him conclusively to the alleged offence and that bail should be considered in light of the general bail jurisprudence that favors release pending trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contended that the offences include sections 326 and 307 IPC and that the matter is serious; though name not in FIR, the accused’s involvement is suggested by the investigation; considering the gravity and ongoing investigation, bail should be denied or conditioned rather than granted at this early stage.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reaffirm the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and to emphasize fair trial as the guiding objective.
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State Of U.P. and others	2012(2)SCC 382	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that involvement in other cases does not automatically preclude grant of bail, influencing the court’s discretionary relief.

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 Shahul Midad 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3102 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.830/2021 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1784/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , PATTAMBI** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:** SHAHUL MIDAD, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.HAMZA, MALAYIL HOUSE, NELLAYA P.O. POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336 BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN S. P.PRIJITH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON P.MARTIN JOSE SACHIN JACOB AMBAT R.GITHESH ANNA LINDA V.J S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) THOMAS P.KURUVILLA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 2 PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN – 691303 BY ADV.SMT.NEEMA T.V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------B.A.No.3102 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th ] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the 5[th] accused in Crime No.830 of 2021 of Pattambi Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 10.04.2022 and from that date onwards he is in custody. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2021, the petitioner and the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with weapons attacked the defacto complainant. 4 BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The counsel also submitted that the name of the petitioner is also not mentioned in the FIR. The counsel again submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he used iron rods and beat the defacto complainant in his legs. There is absolutely no injury on legs. The counsel also submitted that the main allegation is against the other accused. The petitioner is the 5[th] accused. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner includes Section 326 and 307. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is at the preliminary stage. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in 5 BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 custody from 10.04.2022. It is true that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. That is not a reason to grant bail to the petitioner because that is a matter to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Similarly the counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is contradiction in the ocular evidence and medical evidence. That is also a matter to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other crimes also. It is true that the petitioner is involved in other cases, but that is not a ground to reject the bail in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State Of U.P. and others**_ [2012(2)SCC 382]. But considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of detention, I think this bail application can be allowed. BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 6 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870),** after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 6. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 7 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 8 which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM BAIL APPL.NO.3102 OF 2022 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3102/2022** |PETITIONER'S|ANNEXURES| |---|---| |ANNEXURE1|TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.830 OF| ||2021 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION| |ANNEXURE 2|TRUE COPY OF FIS IN CRIME NO.830 OF| ||2021 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION| |ANNEXURE 3|TRUE DRAFT COPY OF THE DISCHARGE| ||SUMMARY OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT| |ANNEXURE 4|TRUE DRAFT COPY OF THE DISCHARGE| ||SUMMARY OF MR.ANEESH| |ANNEXURE 5|TRUE COPY OF REMAND REPORT IN CRIME| ||NO.830 OF 2021 OF PATTAMBI POLICE| ||STATION| |ANNEXURE 6|TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.619 OF| ||2021 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION| |ANNEXURE 7|CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-04-| ||2022 IN C.M.P.NO.1784 OF 2022 IN| ||CRIME NO.830 OF 2021 PASSED BY| ||JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE| ||COURT, PATTAMBI| //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE