High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Bail Granted; petitioner released on bail with ...

Shakeer P.P v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before IO on Saturdays and as required; (ii) no inducement or intimidation; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) no leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission; (vi) liable to cancellation of bail on violation; (vii) power to modify bail conditions; (viii) IO may continue investigation and effect recoveries if necessary, per Sushila Aggarwal principle.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted; petitioner released on bail with bond and sureties subject to specified conditions including appearance and non-interference with the investigation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shakeer P.P

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.P. Priyeshkumar
• Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shakeer P.P., the first accused in Crime No. 82/2024 of Kuthuparamba Police Station, Kannur, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala. The 22 March 2024 hearing concerns a quarrel on 24 January 2024 when, in furtherance of common intention, the four accused allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and his companion, with injuries including a fracture after the man was struck with a steel bangle. The accused has been in judicial custody since 07 February 2024. The prosecution claims the investigation is ongoing and that the petitioner has prior antecedents; the defense contends innocence and argues that the 326 IPC offense would not be attracted according to the First Information Statement. The court cites Supreme Court judgments that bail is the rule and imprisonment prior to conviction is punitive, such as Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. UP; it also notes that indefinite detention may breach Article 21 per State of Kerala v. Raneef, and that a court may continue investigation and even effect recoveries during bail per Sushila Aggarwal. After considering the facts and that the investigation is practically complete with recoveries, the court grants bail, directing bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and imposing conditions to ensure appearance, non-interference, law-abiding conduct, passport surrender, territorial limits, and continued investigative authority.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 341, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule and detention in jail is the exception
Right to life under Article 21, undertrial prisoners' rights
Investigation may continue and recoveries may be effected even while on bail

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts innocence and argues that the first information statement would show that Section 326 IPC is not attracted; he was falsely implicated. He submits that the investigation is complete and recoveries have been effected, and that custody since 07.02.2024 is unnecessary; thus bail should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the investigation is ongoing and that the petitioner has criminal antecedents; release on bail could lead to interference with the investigation and witness intimidation; bail should be denied pending further inquiry.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Cited for the presumption of innocence and that imprisonment prior to conviction is punitive; bail should not be refused solely due to prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	2018 (3) SCC 22	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is a rule and detention is an exception; discretionary but should be justified by facts.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	2011 (1) SCC 784	Positive	Cited to highlight that indefinite detention of undertrials can infringe Article 21; bail considerations must respect fundamental rights.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to permit continued investigation and possible recoveries during bail, balancing rights with investigative needs.

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 Shakeer P.P 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 C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.82/2024 OF Kuthuparamba Police Station, Kannur** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.419 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY PETITIONER/S:** **SHAKEER P.P AGED 35 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, PADAM POYIL HOUSE, PAZHAYA NIRATH,KUTHUPARAMBA PO, KANNUR., PIN - 670643** **BY ADVS. M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1[st] accused in Crime No.82/2024 of the Kuthuparamba Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324 and 326 r/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 24.01.2024 at around 20.50 hours, while the defacto complainant was riding a scooter along with his friend, the accused in furtherance of their common intention pulled the friend of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. They also caused injuries to the defacto complainant by hitting him with a steel bangle and he sustained a fracture. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Priyesh Kumar M.P., the learned counsel BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 3 appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of the First Information Statement would show that the offence under Section 326 will not be attracted. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She further stated that the petitioner is a person BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 4 with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in two other cases of the year 2012 and 2016. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 7. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 5 Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 6 practically complete and 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 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 till the final report is laid. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 7 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; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, without the permission of the jurisdictional court. (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 below. BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (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/- rkc/22.03.24 ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** The name of the Court shown in clause No.(v) of the final order dated 22-3-24 in BA 2194//2024 stands corrected as the **Court of Sessions, Thalassery** instead of the **Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram** , vide order dated 12-4-24 in Crl MA 2/24 in BA 2194/24. Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR BAIL APPL. NO. 2194 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2194/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 244/2024 DATED 07.02.2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA** **Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 346/2024 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DATED 27.02.2024** **Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 419/2024 DATED 13.03.2024 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY**