High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-10Bail granted; petitioners released on bail with...

Shameer K v. State of Kerala; Anwar v. State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos. 4096/2024 & 4062/2024)

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 OF 2024; BAIL APPL. NO. 4062 OF 2024 (CRIME NO. 621/2024, Kayamkulam PS, Alappuzha)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: The applications are allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. Conditions: (i) appearance before Investigating Officer every Saturday 9-11 a.m. until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of offences while on bail; (iv) surrender of passports if any; (v) breach may lead to cancellation of bail; (vi) applications for modification of bail conditions may be entertained; (vii) IO may investigate and effect recoveries on information furnished, even while on bail, as per Sushila Aggarwal guidance.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petitioners released on bail with stipulated bonds and conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shameer K
Anwar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Anas s/o Asharaf (Additional 2nd Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Basil Chandy Vavachan
• Charutha Bhaiju
• Chandhana Bhaiju
• Basil Sajan
• Fathim Navas
• Kavya P.R.
• Lekshmi Priya V.
• Basil Scaria

Counsels for Respondents

• Georgie Simon
• Smt. Seetha S.
• Smt. Neema T.V. (PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This common order concerns two bail applications (Bail Appl. Nos. 4096/2024 and 4062/2024) arising from Crime No. 621/2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The petitioners Shameer K (2nd accused) and Anwar (3rd accused) are charged with offences under Sections 447 and 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, allegedly entering the defacto complainant’s premises with a sword stick to commit an attack. Both petitions were heard together as they arise from the same crime. The prosecution argues serious offences and risk of witness intimidation, while the petitioners claim innocence, that the 1st accused inflicted the injuries and the 2nd accused and defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute, and that investigation is near completion with recovery effected. Annexure-3 affidavit from the defacto complainant states no grievance against the 2nd accused. The court observes that the petitioners have been in custody for over a month and that the investigation is nearly complete. It places weight on the amicable settlement and the completion of investigation, while acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offences. Relying on Dataram Singh and Sushila Aggarwal, the court holds bail to be the rule and imposes standard conditions, including Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties, weekly appearances before the IO, no tampering, surrender of passports, and power to cancel or modify bail on breach. Accordingly, both bail applications are allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439Indian Penal Code, Sections 447 and 307 read with 34Constitution of India, Article 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Article 21)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that they are prima facie innocent; investigation is substantially complete; the first accused allegedly inflicted the injuries and there is an amicable settlement between the defacto complainant and the second accused (Annexure-3). They argued that custodial detention beyond a month, with recovery already effected, should not be continued and that bail should be granted subject to reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed bail citing the seriousness of the offences (Sections 447 and 307 r/w 34 IPC), ongoing investigation, and risk of intimidation and tampering with evidence if bail were granted; the defacto complainant’s stand and the lack of ongoing grievance against the 2nd accused were noted but the core concern remained the gravity of the alleged offences and potential interference with witnesses.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	[(2018) 3 SCC 22]	Positive	Cited to endorse the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, a guiding standard in bail jurisprudence under Article 21.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify the court’s power to impose conditions on bail and to illustrate ongoing judicial approach to bail conditions and monitoring.

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 Shameer K v. State of Kerala; Anwar v. State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos. 4096/2024 & 4062/2024) 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** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.621/2024 OF Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER/S:** **SHAMEER K ,AGED 33 YEARS C/O KUNJUMON, PUTHENPURAYIL PADEETTATHIL, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502** **BY ADVS. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN CHARUTHA BHAIJU CHANDHANA BHAIJU BASIL SAJAN FATHIM NAVAS KAVYA P.R. LEKSHMI PRIYA V. BASIL SCARIA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - ***2 ANAS,S/O ASHARAF, MANNASSERIL THARAYIL, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA** **[IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DT.10.06.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2024]** **BY ADVS. No Advocate GEORGIE SIMON** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4062/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4062 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.621/2024 OF Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER/S:** **ANWAR, AGED 25 YEARS S/O NAZAR, EDAYILE HOUSE, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, VERUVALLI BHAGOM MURIYIL, KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690502** **BY ADVS. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN CHARUTHA BHAIJU CHANDHANA BHAIJU BASIL SAJAN FATHIM NAVAS KAVYA P.R. LEKSHMI PRIYA V. BASIL SCARIA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4096/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 3 ## **COMMON ORDER** The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.621/2024 of the Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioners were arrested on 07.05.2024. B.A.No.4096/2024 is filed by the 2[nd] accused and B.A.No.4062/2024 is filed by the 3[rd] accused. Since the applications arise out of the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that: on 05.05.2024, at around 22 hours, the accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention to kill the defacto complainant, had forcefully entered the premises of the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] accused handed over a BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 4 sword stick to the 1[st] accused, who repeatedly attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to the right side of his hand with an intention to kill him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Neema T.V. and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutors and Sri.Georgei Simon, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2[nd ] respondent/defacto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. A reading of the Annexure-1 FIR would substantiate that it was the 1[st] accused who inflicted the serious injuries on the defacto complainant. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last more than one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Moreover, the defacto complainant/additional 2[nd] respondent has sworn Annexure-3 affidavit stating that he has no subsisting grievance against the 2[nd] accused. Therefore, the subject matter in dispute between the 2[nd] respondent and the 2[nd] accused has been settled out of court. Hence, the applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. They also stated that the petitioners have committed a very serious offence under Section 307 of the IPC. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/additional 2[nd] respondent submitted that the additional 2[nd] respondent has sworn Annexure-3 affidavit BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 6 stating that he does not propose to proceed against the 2[nd] accused, since the dispute between them has been amicably settled and he has voluntarily executed Annexure-3 affidavit on 08.05.2024. 7. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused in furtherance of their common intention had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and the 1[st] accused assaulted him with a sword stick and he suffered grievous injuries. Indisputably, the additional 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant has stated that he does not want to prosecute the matter against the 2[nd] accused, who allegedly had previous animosity with the defacto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last more than one month, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 8. 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. 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. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, which is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and especially taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last more than one month, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected and BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 8 moreover the subject matter in dispute between the defacto complainant and the 2[nd] accused has been amicably settled out of court, I am of the definite view that the applications are only to be allowed. In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - ii. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 9 court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - iii. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; - iv. The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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 applications 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. - vii. 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 petitioners BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 10 even while the petitioners are 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/10.06.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 11 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4062/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1** **THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 621/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF REMAND APPLICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 08/05/2024 IN CRIME NO. 621/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 & 4062 OF 2024 12 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4096/2024** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure 1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.**| ||**621/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA**| |**Annexure 2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF REMAND APPLICATION OF**| ||**PETITIONER DATED 08/05/2024 IN CRIME NO.**| ||**621/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA**| |**Annexure 3**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE**| ||**DEFACTO COMPLAINANT**|