High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted

SUNEER v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 2861 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date
2023-04-13
Court Decision / Holding
The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; the conditions include not intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation and trial, appearance before the Investigating Officer on directed dates and every Monday for two months, not leaving India without court permission, and not committing any other offence during the bail period.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SUNEER

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • T V NEEMA – SR PP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. Rohith Harishma
  • • P. Thampi
  • • A. S. Shilpa

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T V Neema (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a regular bail application (BA 2861 of 2023) filed by the 13th accused in Crime No. 1015 of 2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges that on 23.12.2022 the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant’s office—operating as the ‘Brawny Brute’ Family Studio Health and Boutique Clinic—where he and others beat staff with a hammer and wooden stick, forcibly obtained a cheque signed by the complainant, and robbed files, a laptop, treatment equipment, a car (i20, KL-40-L 3141), ATM card, gold, dress and other items valued at about Rs. 14,80,000. It is further alleged that they poured salt at the office to simulate MDMA, took photographs with the items and warned the complainant of public exposure; the complainant sustained injuries to the face and eyes. Police registered the crime on 25.12.2022 under IPC sections 452, 324, 328, 395, 427 and 506(ii) read with 212 IPC. The petitioner contends that he is a first-time offender, has already spent about 65 days in custody, and that the investigation is practically over; he offers to cooperate. The State argues the offences are serious and investigation is at an early stage, and earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. The court ultimately grants regular bail with conditions: bond Rs 50,000, two solvent sureties, no witness intimidation, cooperation with investigation and trial, regular appearance, no travel without permission, and no further offences.”

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 452IPC 324IPC 328IPC 395IPC 427IPC 506(ii)IPC 212

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the incident was isolated, he is a first-time offender, investigation is nearly complete, and he is ready to cooperate; he cites the bail grant to the 8th accused (B.A. No. 2121 of 2023) and argues that custody is no longer necessary for investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends the offences are grave, investigation is at an early stage, recovery of stolen items has not yet been effected, and several co-accused have pending anticipatory bail applications; bail should not be granted at this juncture.

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 SUNEER 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 A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2861 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1015/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/13TH ACCUSED:** **SUNEER AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SHAMSUDHEEN, CHALAYIL HOUSE, PULLILAMKARA, NAD P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101 BY ADVS. R.ROHITH HARISHMA P. THAMPI A.S.SHILPA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** **T V NEEMA – SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 2 ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2023** This is an application for regular bail filed by the 13[th] accused in Crime No. 1015 of 2022 of Infopark Police station, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have perused the case diary as such and the documents placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the defacto complainant 4. Shown off unnecessary averments, the prosecution allegation is that, at about 1.15 pm on 23.12.2022, the accused herein criminally trespassed upon the office of the defacto complainant where ‘Brawny Brute' Family Studio Health and Bautique Clinic' has been functioning and thereafter, the first accused beat the defacto complainant and his staff by using a hammer and a wooden stick and thereby the first accused B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 3 forcefully obtained a cheque signed by the defacto complainant. The further allegation is that the accused herein robbed away the files, laptop, treatment equipment, i20 car bearing registration No.KL-40-L 3141, ATM card, gold, dress, speaker to the tune of Rs.14,80,000/-. The further allegation is that they have poured salt at the office of the defacto complainant so as to make it appear the same as MDMA along with injections and narcotic drugs and thereafter taken the photographs of the defacto complainant along with those items with intimidation that those photographs would be used to show the defacto complainant as a person engaged in sale of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It is alleged further that they beat the defacto complainant and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his face and eyes. According to the defacto complainant/prosecution, the accused herein was there at the office at 6 pm and all the accused jointly involved in this crime. Pursuant to forwarding of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant before the Deputy Commissioner of Police as on 24.12.2022, crime was registered at 11.35 pm on 23.12.2022 alleging that the accused herein committed offences punishable B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 4 under Sections 452, 324, 328, 395, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 212 of IPC. 5. While pressing for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who had been nabbed and detained in custody from 30.01.2023 onwards, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the de facto complainant, after the occurrence shadows doubt in the prosecution case. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is a first time offender and the investigation requiring the custody of the petitioner is practically over. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the 8[th] accused in this crime was granted bail by this Court vide B.A.No. 2121 of 2023. Therefore, taking note of the above aspects, the petitioner may be released on bail and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and trial. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegation herein are serious. It is also submitted that accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12 filed anticipatory bail applications before this court vide B.A.Nos. 928, 1004, 1140, 1161 of 2023 before this court, and after considering the rival contentions, B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 5 including submissions made by the de facto complainant, this court dismissed the above anticipatory bail applications. It is also submitted that since the investigation is at the initial stage, and the recovery of the articles alleged to be taken over by the accused not so far effected, premature release of the petitioner could not be considered. It is also pointed out that the other accused were not arrested so far. 7. On perusal of the case diary, the prosecution allegation is well made out prima facie. On perusal of the wound certificate prepared at Sunrise Hospital, Kakkanadu at 6.26 pm on 23.12.2022, the one and only injury noted by clinical examination is injury peri orbital area. It is to be noted that thereafter, the defacto complainant met Doctor at MAJ Hospital, Edapally on 25.12.2022 in the morning and CT Scan examination in the face of defacto complainant was done. The impression in the CT Scan report are as under: _1. Possible undisplaced fractures noted in roofmedial wall of right orbit._ _2. Pneumo-orbit noted on right_ _3. Polypoidal mucosal thickening noted in bilateral maxillary sinus._ B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 6 Based on the CT Scan study, undisplaced fractures noted in roof-medial wall of right orbit was diagnosed. 8. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the de facto complainant failed to lodge a complaint in time and the available records would go to show that the de facto complainant was illegally detained up to 6 pm on 23.12.2022 and thereafter, he sought medical aid. The crime was registered on 25.12.2022. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 24.12.2022 without much delay to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Therefore, the prosecution allegations are well made out. 9. The petitioner has been in custody for the last sixty five days. On perusal of the prosecution records, the custody of the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents, for the purpose of investigation found to be not necessary further. Therefore, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, on conditions: i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 7 amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court concerned. - ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. - iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, apart from appearing before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 am and 10 am, for a period of two months. - iv. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police office. - v. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Jurisdictional Court. B.A.No. 2861 of 2023 8 vi. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported, or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. **Sd/-** **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** SK