Sreemon v. State of Kerala

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2494 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.245/2024 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` SREEMON AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SREERAJAN, THEKKEVILA LEKSHAM VEEDU, AMBIPOIKA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691501 ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SWAPNA VIJAYAN RADHIKA S.ANIL ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.245/2024 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (nine in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 & 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). 3. The essence of the prosecution, is that: on 13.02.2024, at around 11 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly, and the second accused hit the de-facto complainant/injured with a helmet on his right hand. The accused Nos.1 & 3 also assaulted the _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:3:-_ de-facto complainant’s friend with an iron pipe and key, and they suffered grievous injuries. The fifth accused had also assaulted the de-facto complainant and his friends with his bare hands. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. A reading of Annexure-A First Information Report [FIR] would substantiate that the offences under Sections 326 & 307 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. It was the accused Nos.1 to 3, who assaulted the de-facto complainant and his friends with weapons and caused grievous injuries to them. The _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:4:-_ petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, assaulted the de-facto complainant and his friends and caused injuries to them. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that, it was the accused Nos.1 to 3 who used weapons and caused grievous injuries. She stated that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and full investigation of the case. 7. On an analysis of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that, it was the accused Nos.1 to 3 who used weapons and injured the de-facto _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:5:-_ complainant and his friends. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he hit the injured with his hands. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the fact that the accused Nos.1 to 3 inflicted the grievous injuries with weapons and the only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he used hands to assault the injured, I am prima-facie satisfied the offences under Sections 326 & 307 cannot be attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for an order of pre-arrest bail but subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operates with the investigation. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:6:-_ the Investigating Officer within one week from today; - (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself; - (iii)On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; - (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; - (v) The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other _B.A.No.2494/2024_ ## _-:7:-_ ## offence while he is on bail. - (vii)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; - (viii)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. - (ix)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (x) 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 _B.A.No.2494/2024_ _-:8:-_ **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. - (xi) Any observations made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by the Courts. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/03.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge