Sooraj Suresh v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024** ## **CRIME NO.589/2024 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SOORAJ SURESH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SURESH KUMAR,CHINNU NIVAS THEKKEVILA CHERRY, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM (DIST), PIN - 691016** ## **BY ADV M.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691011** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No.589/2024 of the Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 05.05.2024, at around 20.15 hours, while the defacto complainant was attending to the floats in connection with a temple festival, the 1[st] accused questioned him and hurled obscene words at him. He then hit him on his leg with an iron bangle. Thereafter, the accused 2 and 3 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him with a stone and the defacto complainant suffered a nasal bone fracture. Thus, the accused have BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 3 committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.M.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure-1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 326 of the IPC cannot be attributed against the petitioner, since it was the accused 2 and 3, who hit the defacto complainant with a stone on his nose and he suffered a fracture. The only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he hit the defacto complainant on his head with an iron bangle. There is no corresponding injury to attract the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Therefore, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 4 progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it may hamper the investigation. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the specific overt act of causing a nasal bone fracture is attributed against the accused 2 and 3. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt act is alleged against the accused 2 and 3, who allegedly hit the defacto complainant with an iron stone and he suffered a nasal bone fracture. The said aspect stands prima facie corroborated by the treatment records issued by the A.R..Rahim Memorial District Hospital, Kollam dated 06.05.2024 which shows that the defacto complainant has suffered a nasal bone fracture. The allegation against the petitioner is that he hit the defacto complainant with a bangle on his head. Nonetheless, these are matters to be investigated and decided after trial. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 5 placed on record, especially on considering the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, so as to attribute the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, I am of the view that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that the petitioner cooperates with the Investigating Officer. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; - (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 6 - (iv) 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; - (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before said court within the said period; - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; - (vii) 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. - (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 7 conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (ix) 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]. - (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- rkc/06.06.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 3963 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3963/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 589/2024 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION**