Shaindas @ Shainudas v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-12
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until final report, (ii) not to induce or procure witnesses or tamper with evidence, (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail, (iv) surrender of passport, and (v) court may cancel bail on breach. The Investigating Officer is empowered to continue investigation and effect recoveries, if necessary, even while on bail, as supported by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted; Second Accused released on specified bail conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHAINDAS @ SHAINUDAS

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT SHYNI V O

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shaindas @ Shainudas, the second accused in crime No.1048/2023 of Mankara Police Station, Palakkad, petitions under Section 439 CrPC for bail. The two-accused case concerns offences under Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 3 January 2024; recovery of a pistol and magazine from the first accused's house occurred on 6 December 2023, with the first accused allegedly admitting that he procured the firearm from Visakhapatnam for the second accused. The petitioner maintains innocence, contending he has been falsely implicated; the confession of the first accused forms the basis for his arraignment, and the investigation is nearly complete with the recovery already effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing prior antecedents and ongoing investigation, and warnings of possible witness intimidation or tampering if released. After hearing, the court found that the second accused's detention beyond the present moment is unnecessary, given the progress of the investigation and the recovery, and the fact that the arrest occurred over a month after the registration of the crime. On these considerations, the court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties and imposing conditions including regular appearance, non-tampering with witnesses, non-commission of offences, passport surrender, and potential cancellation of bail for breach. A reference to Sushila Aggarwal for IO powers during bail is noted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the second accused is innocent and falsely implicated; the arrest record shows he was taken into custody only on 03.01.2024, while the investigation in Crime No.1048/2023 is largely complete with the recovery already effected. The confession of the first accused is the sole basis for arraignment, and continued detention is unnecessary. Bail should be granted to avoid unjust pre-trial detention and possible prejudice to the petitioner, given lack of direct involvement and absence of ongoing control over witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in other crimes at the same station; ongoing investigation and the likelihood of witness intimidation or tampering if released on bail justify denial of bail.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that the Investigating Officer may continue investigations and take necessary recoveries even after bail is granted, aligning with the court's reasoning in maintaining investigative taking place.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B.A No. 941 of 2024 1 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 941 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1048/2023 OF Mankara Police Station, Palakkad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED:`** ``` SHAINDAS @ SHAINUDAS AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY, CHIRAKKULAM, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VENGASSERY, AMBALAPPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679516 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY PP SMT SHYNI V O ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A No. 941 of 2024 2 Dated this the 12[th] day of February, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in crime No.1048/2023 of the Mankara Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 03.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 06.12.2023 at about 15.50 hours, the Investigating Officer recovered a pistol gun and a magazine from the house of the first accused. During the course of the interrogation, the first accused confessed that he brought the gun from Visakhapatanam for the second B.A No. 941 of 2024 3 accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.A. Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shiny. V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner has any involvement in the crime. It is only on the basis of the confession statement made by the first accused that the petitioner has been arraigned as the second accused. The petitioner’s formal arrest was recorded in the present case on 03.01.2024. The petitioner was actually arrested on 30.11.2023 in Crime No.1034/2023 of the B.A No. 941 of 2024 4 very same police station. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in other crimes at the very same police station. The investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner has been arraigned as the second accused in the crime based on the confession made by the first accused that he brought the B.A No. 941 of 2024 5 pistol with the magazine from Visakhapatanam for the second accused/the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner’s arrest was recorded in the present crime on 03.01.2024, which is more than a month. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 7. On an anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the 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 B.A No. 941 of 2024 6 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 two months 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; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; B.A No. 941 of 2024 7 (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) 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 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 B.A No. 941 of 2024 8 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** mtk/12.02.24