High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-10Bail granted to the applicant on stringent cond...

Shan Antony v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Application No. 14 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS
Judgment Date: 2024-01-10
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner Shan Antony is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, one of whom must be a native of Kerala, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement, threat, or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no further offences; (iv) surrender of passport; (v) the court may cancel or modify bail for violation; (vi) IO may investigate and recover information even while on bail as per Sushila Aggarwal. The order reflects a balance between personal liberty and investigative needs.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant on stringent conditions (conditional bail).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shan Antony

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application (No.14 of 2024) before the Kerala High Court concerns Shan Antony, the second accused in Crime No.1413/2023 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition is filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail for offences under the Indian Penal Code: 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon), and 308 (attempt to grievous hurt) read with Section 34; Section 326 was later added. The petitioner was arrested on 4 December 2023. The prosecution alleges that, on 4 December 2023 at around 00:45 hours, the accused, in furtherance of a common intention, assaulted the informant; the first accused struck with a ring box and the second accused with an iron bangle, with the first allegedly attempting a cut injury. The petitioner contends innocence and argues the first accused is the real aggressor; he has been in custody since 4 December 2023 and the investigation, with respect to him, is practically complete. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing the informant’s skull fracture and the first accused at large, warning that bail could hamper the investigation. The court, after hearing, notes the detention period and the near completion of investigation in respect of the petitioner, and, while acknowledging public interest, grants bail subject to stringent conditions: bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties (one a Kerala native), appearance before IO on alternate Saturdays for a month, no tampering or inducement, surrender of passport, and possible cancellation/modification of bail on violation, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi for the applicable principle.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 326 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) — principle on bail conditions and power to cancel bail when violated.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated; the first accused is the aggressor, and the petitioner has been in custody since 4 December 2023 while the investigation is practically complete in respect of him. He argued that continued detention serves no purpose and that bail with stringent conditions would safeguard the investigation, ensure presence, and protect witnesses. The applicant is ready to comply with bond, sureties, regular appearance before the IO, prohibition on tampering with evidence, surrender of passport, and potential modification or cancellation of bail for violation, relying on established bail jurisprudence, including the principle cited in Sushila Aggarwal. The counsel emphasized that the first accused is at large, and releasing the second accused would not unduly prejudice the case, given the lack of direct involvement by the petitioner.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the informant’s skull fracture and the first accused at large; releasing the petitioner at this stage could hamper the investigation. The State contended that the seriousness of the injuries and the risk of interference with witnesses warranted careful consideration and that the detention was justifiable until a final report is filed. The prosecution urged for stringent conditions if bail were granted to ensure cooperation with investigators and to safeguard the case’s integrity.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Used to justify bail conditions and the court’s power to modify or cancel bail for violations, per established Supreme Court principle.

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 Shan Antony 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.

1 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 14 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1413/2023 OF Thumba Police Station, ``` ``` Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 3277/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SHAN ANTONY AGED 27 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, THAIVILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR VALIAVELI HOSPITAL, POUNDUKADAVU, ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695581 BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.SEETHA.S. SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 14 of 2024** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 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.1413/2023 of the Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (two in number) alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sec.326 has been subsequently added in the above crime. The petitioner was arrested on 4.12.2023. 3 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: On 4.12.2023 at 00.45 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention of assaulting the informant, uttered obscene words and the first accused hit the informant with a ring box and the second accused hit him with an iron bangle and the first accused attempted to inflict a cut injury on the informant, which he warded. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even going by the prosecution case it was the first accused who inflicted the injury on the informant. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 4.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete as against the petitioner. The petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. She made available the case diary. She contended that the injured sustained a 5 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 fracture on his skull. The first accused is still at large. Letting off the petitioner at this stage may hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he along with the first accused had inflicted injuries on the informant. Indisputably, it is the first accused who hit the injured with a ring box and attempted to inflict a cut injury. The petitioner has been in custody since 4.12.2023, which is more than 35 days now. The investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete. Therefore, I am of the definite view that continued detention of the petitioner is 6 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 unnecessary. Nonetheless, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, one of them shall be a native of the State of Kerala, 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 alternate Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. And he 7 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 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; (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 8 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 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. (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 9 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 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 of Delhi and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sks/10.1.2024 SD/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 10 Bail Application No.14 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 14/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-APHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1413/2023 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure-BPHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/12/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3277/2023 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ```