Shejeer and Sarath @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-01-22
Court Decision / Holding: (1) Bail application of the 2nd petitioner/6th accused is dismissed. (2) Bail application of the 1st petitioner/3rd accused is allowed; he is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the IO, non-inducement or tampering with witnesses, not committing any offence while on bail, surrender of passport if any, providing address and contact details, and the court’s power to cancel bail on violation, with reference to Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another.
Final Disposition: Bail application disposed: 2nd accused denied bail; 1st accused granted bail with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shejeer
Sarath @ Kannan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Liffy P. Francis

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (Sri C.S. Hrithwik)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail petition concerns six accused in crime no.1119/2023 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, pending before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The petitioners, Shejeer and Sarath @ Kannan, apply under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail after their arrests on 30.11.2023 and 01.12.2023 for offenses including trespass, hurt, hit with an iron rod, destruction of property, insult, and criminal intimidation, read with Section 34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts their innocence, custody for around 54 days, completed investigation, and willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor contends that investigation is ongoing and that one of the petitioners has significant criminal antecedents, including KAAPA Act proceedings and multiple prior cases, so bail should be denied. After considering the materials, the judge notes that the first petitioner has a history dating back to 2013 and 2016, and has already been acquitted in some matters, while emphasizing that the investigation is practically complete; the court finds that further detention of the first petitioner is not necessary. However, due to the second petitioner’s antecedents and the likelihood of re-offending, the court denies bail for the second petitioner. The court grants bail to the first petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including appearance before IO, non-tampering with evidence, surrender of passport, and disclosure of address and contact details, with power to cancel bail for violations, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another. Dated 22 January 2024, by Justice C.S. Dias.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSections 341, 323, 324, 447, 294(b), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 IPCKAAPA Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are innocent, in custody for about 54 days, and that investigation is practically complete. They are willing to comply with stringent conditions, including reporting, abstaining from tampering with evidence, and surrendering any passport.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contends that investigation is ongoing; the second accused has a long criminal history with numerous cases and KAAPA Act proceedings; bail should be refused to avoid further offences.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify imposing bail conditions and to permit recovering information from the petitioner during bail, following the Supreme Court doctrine cited in Sushila Aggarwal.

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 22[ND] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1119/2023 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 1850/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &** ## **SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 SHEJEER AGED 28 YEARS S/O SHAKEER, NOOLPADATH HOUSE, KACHERIPADY DESOM, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506 2 SARATH @ KANNAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, MAMBULLY HOUSE, CHEMMAPPULLY COLONY DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680506 BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 SR.PP. SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 3 and 6 in Crime No.1119/2023 of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (six in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, 294(b), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 30.11.2023 and 01.12.2023, respectively. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: around 8 p.m. on 29.11.2023, the 6[th] accused had trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant and the 1[st] accused uttered obscene words and slapped him. The 2[nd] accused hit him on his head and the accused 5 and 6 kicked him. The accused 3 and 4 hit him on his back, leg and head with an iron rod and thereby caused injuries. The accused 3 and 4 destroyed the front glass of his vehicle and caused a loss of Rs.17,000/. If the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** complainant had not prevented the attack, it would have resulted in his death. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Liffy P.Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They are in custody for the last 54 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The recovery has been effected. The petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. They are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the investigation is still in progress. The 2[nd] petitioner/6[th] accused is a history BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** sheeter. There are ten other cases registered against him. If he is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Moreover, proceedings under the KAAPA Act is initiated against him. Likewise, two other crimes have been registered against the 1[st] petitioner/3[rd] accused. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the antecedents alleged against the 1[st] petitioner is of the years 2013 and 2016, and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1[st] petitioner has already been acquitted, I am of the view that further detention of the 1[st] petitioner/3[rd] accused is not necessary. Nonetheless, taking into account the criminal antecedents of the 2[nd] petitioner/ 6[th] accused and the fact that there is every likelihood of him BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 5 committing similar offences and that proceedings under the KAAPA Act have been initiated against him, I am of the view that the 2[nd] petitioner/6[th] accused is not entitled to be released on bail. In the result; (1) The bail application filed by the 2[nd] petitioner/6[th] accused is dismissed; (2) The bail application filed by the 1[st] petitioner/3[rd] accused is allowed by directing him 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, 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 6 (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 to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 7 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 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]. sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/22.01.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 9 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO.1850/2023 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR