High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

Sudhi v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station, Kollam

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-01-12
Court Decision / Holding
The application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000 each, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, on the following conditions: (i) appearance before the IO on alternate Saturdays for two months or until final report; (ii) not to induce or tamper with witnesses; (iii) not to commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport, if any; (v) court may cancel/revise bail for violations; (vi) applications for modification of conditions to be entertained by the court; (vii) IO may investigate and take recoveries while on bail as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another.
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sudhi aged 24 years s/o Suresh, SunI Bhavan, Koriyottumala, Vettithitta P.O, Piravathoor Village, Kollam District, PIN - 689696

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. Siju Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) filed by Sudhi, the first accused in Crime No. 2187/2023 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused, along with two others, is said to have trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house and assaulted his brother on 10 December 2023, following prior complaints to police, resulting in injuries to the complainant’s brother and to the accused as per Annexure A2. Sudhi was arrested on 12 December 2023 and has been in judicial custody since then. The petitioner contends innocence, stating that Annexure A2 FIR was registered by him against the defacto complainant in the same incident as a counter-blast; he has sustained injuries and is willing to abide by stringent conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting ongoing investigation but acknowledged the counter-allegations in Annexure A2. The court noted that investigation is practically complete and considered the lack of purpose in continued detention, granting bail on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions including periodic appearance before the IO, non-tampering with witnesses, non-commission of offences, surrender of passport, and potential cancellation/modification of bail on breach. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi to justify permissible bail conditions and continued investigation during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSections 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPCSection 27 of the Arms Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and points to Annexure A2 FIR registered at the instance of the petitioner against the defacto complainant and others for injuries caused in the same incident. He has been in custody since 12.12.2023, and the investigation is practically complete. He is willing to adhere to stringent conditions for bail and submits that continued detention is unnecessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the investigation is still in progress; however, she conceded that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.12.2023 and Annexure A2 FIR has been registered on the same set of allegations.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveThe court relied on the principle from this case to permit ongoing investigation and recoveries by the IO even while the accused remains on bail, justifying the conditions imposed.

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 Sudhi v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station, Kollam 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** **FRIDAY, THE 12**[TH] **DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.2187/2023 OF Punalur Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 7921/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SUDHI AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SURESH, SUNI BHAVAN, KORIYOTTUMALA, VETTITHITTA P.O, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689696 BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNALOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691305 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT NEEMA T V THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1[st] accused in Crime No.2187/2023 of the Punalur Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (three in number), alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that:at 5 p.m. on 10.12.2023, the accused 1 and 2 along with the brother of the 1[st] accused restrained the defacto complainant's brother and assaulted him since he preferred a complaint before the Police. Out of this animosity, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caused hurt to his brother on 10.12.2023 with deadly weapons. The 1[st] accused caught hold of the defacto complainant's shoulder and attempted to hack his brother with a sword. Since the defacto 3 BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 complainant pushed aside his brother, the sword fell on the neck of the defacto complainant. The 2[nd] accused hit on the eye brow of the defacto complainant with a hammer. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.Siju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. Annexure A2 FIR has been registered at the instance of the petitioner against the defacto complainant and others for causing injuries to the petitioner in the very same incident. In fact the petitioner has also sustained injuries. It is only as a counter blast to the injuries caused to the defacto complainant that Annexure A1 has been registered. The petitioner has been in incarceration since 12.12.2023, BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 4 which is more than a month. The investigation of the case is practically complete. The petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the bail application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.12.2023 and Annexure A2 FIR has been registered on the very same set of allegations against the defacto complainant and others. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of Annexure A2 FIR and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.12.2023 and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I do not find any purpose for the continued detention of the BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 5 petitioner in jail. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 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, 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 Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. And he 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 6 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) 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** (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 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/12.01.24 8 BAIL APPL. NO. 95 OF 2024 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 95/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.2187/2023 OF PUNALOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DATED 11.12.2023 Annexure A2 THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.2188/2023 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION DATED 11.12.2023 Annexure A3 THE COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD DATED 14.12.2023 ISSUED FROM THE GOVT. TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PUNALUR Annexure A4 THE COPY OF ORDER IN C.M.P NO.7921/2023 DATED 22.12.2023 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-II (FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR