Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to the applicant Shameem B.; relea...

Shameem B. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4274 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-06-05
Court Decision / Holding
The Court, applying the principle that where there is no specific overt act against an accused and the investigation has largely been completed, bail may be granted to avoid unnecessary detention, and observing the earlier order in B.A.1581/2024 for the 11th accused, allows Shameem B. to be released on bail. The bail is granted on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount, and subject to standard conditions: (i) appearance before IO every Saturday 9–11 a.m. until the final report; (ii) non-inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport if any; (v) jurisdictional court may cancel or modify bail on breach; (vi) modifications allowed by the court below. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify that police may continue to investigate and effect recoveries while the accused is on bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to the applicant Shameem B.; released on bail with specified bond, sureties, and conditions; investigation permitted to continue with bail safeguards.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shameem B.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Station House Officer, Kurathikadu Police Station, Kurathikadu, Alappuzha District
  • Peter, S/o Alex, Alex Villa, Kaduvinayil Muriyil, Vallikunnam Village, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District
  • Viswaral, S/o Vishwanathan Achary, Olezhuthil Veettill, Kaduvinamuri, Vallikunnam Village, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District
  • Akhil Nath, S/o Bhadran, Akhil Bhavanam, Vedaraplavu (P.O.), Charummood, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District
  • Jishnu Raj @ Chandhu, S/o Rajendran, Kuzhumelil Veedu, Puthenchantha (P.O.), Vallikunnam Village, Mavelikkara Taluk, Alappuzha District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ajith Murali
  • • Swapna Vijayan
  • • Mohanan M.K.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Seetha S (Public Prosecutor)
  • • Dileep P.V. (advocate for respondents 3–6)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shameem B., the 13th accused in Crime No. 833/2023 of Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha, moves the High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail. The FIR accuses a group of persons of forming an unlawful assembly with sticks on 18.12.2023 around 23:00 hours, assaulting the de facto complainant and friends, and inflicting injuries, including grievous hurt on at least one victim. Accused faced offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307, read with Section 149. Shameem B. was arrested on 17.05.2024. The petitioner contends innocence, arguing that the FIR discloses specific overt acts only against accused 1–10, and cites a prior order in B.A. No.1581/2024 granting pre-arrest bail to the 11th accused on the basis that no specific overt act was alleged against him. The subject matter between the accused and injured (respondents 3–6) has largely been settled out of court, and the injured no longer wish to prosecute. The State opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and potential interference, though it did not dispute the 11th accused’s pre-arrest bail. The Court, after considering submissions and a previous order, notes the petitioner’s custody since 17.05.2024, practically complete investigation regarding him, and recovered properties. Since no specific overt act is alleged against him and to avoid undue detention, the Court grants bail conditioned on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, regular IO appearances, no witness tampering or further offences, passport surrender, and potential modification/cancellation upon breach, citing Sushila Aggarwal principles.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439Indian Penal Code, Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Common intention under IPC 149 (unlawful assembly)
  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663 (doctrine on bail and investigation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence, noting that the FIR discloses a specific overt act only against accused 1–10 and relies on a prior order in B.A. No.1581/2024 granting pre-arrest bail to the 11th accused on the basis that no specific overt act was alleged against him. He also submits that the dispute with the injured has been settled out of court, and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.05.2024 with the investigation largely complete. He seeks bail on grounds of non-availability of overt acts against him and the need to prevent undue detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that the investigation is ongoing and release on bail may interfere with it. She notes that the State did not dispute the earlier grant of pre-arrest bail to the 11th accused under B.A.1581/2024. The injured (respondents 3–6) are represented by counsel and have had the matter settled out of court, but the need for ongoing investigation into the other accused remains. She asserts that bail should not be granted at this stage to avoid interference with the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to support the proposition that investigations and recoveries can proceed while an accused is on bail, under the Court’s conditions.

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 Shameem B. v. State of Kerala and Others 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4274 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.833/2023 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SHAMEEM B, AGED 26 YEARS S/O BIJUMON B,KATTIRETHU VADAKKATHIL, PULLIKANAKKU P.O, KRISHNAPURAM KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690537 ``` ``` BY ADVS. AJITH MURALI SWAPNA VIJAYAN MOHANAN M.K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER , KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, KURATHIKADU , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690107 3PETER, AGED 28 YEARS S/O ALEX, ALEX VILLA, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE , MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690501 ``` ``` 4VISWARAL, AGED 29 YEARS S/O VISHWANATHAN ACHARY, OLEZHUTHIL VEETTIL, KADUVINAL MURIYIL, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE , MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690501 ``` ``` 5AKHIL NATH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O BHADRAN, AKHIL BHAVANAM, VEDARAPLAVU (PO), CHARUMMOODU , MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690501 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** ``` 6JISHNU RAJ @ CHANDHU, AGED 28 YEARS ``` ``` S/O RAJENDRAN, KUZHUMELIL VEEDU, PUTHENCHANTHA (PO), VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE , MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690501 ``` ``` BY ADV DILEEP P V ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT SEETHA S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` **Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 13[th] accused in Crime No.833/2023 of the Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused ( 13 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 18.12.2023, at around 23.00 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly with sticks and attacked the de-facto complainant and his friends, and caused injuries to them. When one of the injured attempted to escape, the ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** accused followed him and hit him with sticks, causing grievous injuries to him also. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Ajith Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Seetha.S the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. P.V. Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6/ injured. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the FIR would establish that the specific overt act is only alleged against the accused 1 to 10. In fact, by order dated 04.04.2024 in B.A.No.1581/2024, this Court has granted an order of pre-arrest bail in favour of the 11[th] accused, taking into account that no specific overt act is alleged against him, but only against the accused 1 to 10. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said order. ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** Moreover, the subject matter in dispute between the accused and the injured, mainly respondents 3 to 6, has been settled out of court. The injured are no longer desirous to prosecute the matter. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.05.2024, the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the 11[th] accused has been granted an order of pre-arrest bail by this Court as per the order in **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` B.A.No.1581/2024, on the finding that there is no specific overt act alleged against him. 6. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the findings of this Court in the order in B.A.No.1581/2024, wherein it is observed that there is only a specific overt act alleged against the accused 1 to 10, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.05.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` 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) 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. ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.4274 of 2024** (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].** mtk/05.06.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**