High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-05Granted bail

Sujulal alias Mudiyan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-06-05
Court Decision / Holding: The court, after evaluating the materials and the authorities cited (including Sanjay Chandra and Dataram Singh), grants bail to the applicant. The petitioner is to be released on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000 each, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday 9 a.m.–11 a.m. until the final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport or file an affidavit; (v)-(vi) modification of conditions as allowed by law; (vii) IO may investigate and effect recoveries as necessary under judicial supervision, following the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Final Disposition: Granted bail

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sujulal alias Mudiyan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
SR.PP. SMT Neema T.V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R. Sasith

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Neema T.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the third accused in Crime No.506/2024 of the Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam. The FIR alleges that on 27.04.2024, in furtherance of a common intention, the accused and others restrained the defacto complainant and his companions; the 1st accused abused the complainant and struck him on the head, while the 2nd accused inflicted a blow with an iron rod causing head injuries, and the 3rd accused punched the complainant in the right eye; during the altercation, a gold chain was allegedly stolen. The petitioner contends innocence and argues that Annexure A1 shows Section 308 IPC is not attracted, asserting that including 308 is a tactic to deny bail; he has been in judicial custody for about a month, the investigation is practically complete, and recovery has been effected; there are no criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is ongoing and that releasing the petitioner could enable tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, especially since accused 1 and 2 are still in custody. The court notes that the overt acts lie primarily with the 1st and 2nd accused, while the petitioner’s act is comparatively minor. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., and on Article 21 (touchstone of bail), the court concludes that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, and grants bail with conditions including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, weekly IO appearances, non-tampering obligations, surrender of passport, and standard safeguards, while cautioning that violations permit cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeArticle 21 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to sentiments of society

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts his innocence and contends that Annexure A1 shows Section 308 IPC is not attracted; he has already spent about a month in custody; investigation is nearly complete and recoveries have been effected; he has no criminal antecedents; thus ongoing detention would be punitive and bail should be granted to ensure fair trial and liberty until final report.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the investigation remains in progress, the co-accused 1st and 2nd are in custody, and release on bail could lead to tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses; given the seriousness of the offences and risk of interference, bail should be refused or restricted.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Quoted to support the presumption of innocence and the bail principle that bail is the rule, not denial based on past conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	2018 (3) SCC 22	Positive	Cited for the proposition that bail is the general rule and imprisonment is the exception; discretion must be judicious and compassionate.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for bail-related principles and the permissible continuation of investigation while on bail, reinforcing the court’s approach.

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 Sujulal alias Mudiyan 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.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.506/2024 OF Chadayamanagalam Police Station, Kollam** **PETITIONER/S:** **SUJULAL ALIAS MUDIYAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O SIVASANKARAN, SUDHEESH BHAVAN, VATTAKKUZHIKKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL, NADAKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691578** **BY ADV M.R.SASITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.NEEMA T.V.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.506/2024 of the Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code( in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 27.04.2024, at around 16 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to cause bodily injury to the defacto complainant restrained him and his friends and the 1[st] accused abused the defacto complainant in obscene language and hit him on his head. It is only because the defacto complainant warded off the attack, he did not lose his life. But, the 2[nd] accused caused a blow against the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused an injury on his head. Then BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 3 the 3[rd] accused fisted on his right eye. In the altercation, one of the friends of the defacto complainant lost his gold chain. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Sasith M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 will not be attracted. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the said offence to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the accused 1 and 2 are still in judicial custody. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt act is alleged against the accused 1 and 2 for inflicting injuries on the defacto complainant and his friends. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fisted the defacto complainant on his right eye. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 5 that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 6 in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 7 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 till the final report is laid. 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 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; BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 8 - 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. Application 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 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]. sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rkc/05.06.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 4226 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4226/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** |**Annexure-A1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.506/2024 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE**| ||**STATION, KOLLAM**| |**Annexure-A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY**| ||**THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BEFORE THE**| ||**HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE**| ||**COURT, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM**|