Sunish M.R. v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Sunish M.R. is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions (i) regular appearance before the IO on Saturdays for one month or until final report, (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses, (iii) no commission of offences while on bail, (iv) surrender of passport (or an affidavit if none), (v) furnishing current and permanent addresses and mobile number, (vi) court may cancel bail on violation of conditions, (vii) modifications of conditions may be sought, and (viii) IO may pursue investigations and recoveries with permissible scope as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petitioner released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunish M.R.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv K.P. Madhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT Neema T. V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Sunish M.R., seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No.287/2024 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, for alleged offences under Section 304 IPC and Sections 134(a) and 134(b) MV Act. The incident occurred on 13.02.2024 when the petitioner, while reversing a lorry (KL-40-Q-8108) on the Thevara–Kundanoor bridge, struck a person standing behind the vehicle, resulting in death. The accused allegedly washed off blood stains and attempted to destroy evidence and did not provide proper medical aid to the deceased. The petitioner has been in custody since 21.02.2024; the prosecution contends the investigation is incomplete and that releasing him could jeopardize the inquiry. The petitioner’s counsel contends innocence and argues that Section 304 IPC would not be attracted, supported by Annexure A1 remand report. The Public Prosecutor counters that the investigation is ongoing and bail could obstruct it. The High Court, after due consideration, notes that prima facie the offence under 304 IPC may not be attracted and that detention is unnecessary. Relying on the balance of material and public interest, the court grants bail on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including weekly IO appearances, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and address disclosure. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal in support of allowing continued investigations and recoveries on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 304 IPCSections 134(a) and 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2020 (1) KHC 663

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the accused is innocent and that the offence under Sec. 304 IPC cannot be made applicable. The remand report (Annexure A1) suggests non-attraction of 304 IPC and indicates that investigation is largely complete with recovery effected. The petitioner has already spent significant time in custody; hence, bail should be granted with appropriate conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that the investigation is not yet complete and releasing the petitioner could disrupt or derail the ongoing inquiry, thus bail should be denied or deferred until investigation is concluded.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify that investigation and recoveries can proceed even while the accused is on bail, informing the court's conditioning and monitoring framework.

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** **THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.287/2024 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, Ernakulam** **PETITIONER/S:** **SUNISH.M.R AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAJU.M.K, MUTTATHIL (HOUSE) THULAPPALLY PO. KANJIRAPPALLY ,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 686510** **BY ADV K.P.MADHU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T V** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.287/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sec.304 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Secs.134(a) and 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The petitioner was arrested on 21.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 13.02.2024 at around 19.11 hours, while the accused was parking his lorry bearing No.KL-40-Q 8108 on the Thevara - Kundanoor bridge area, he reversed the vehicle in a manner human life and with a endangering knowledge that it would cause death knocked down a person named Sudheesan (deceased), who was standing behind the vehicle. The lorry ran over the said person BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 3 and he succumbed to the fatal injuries. The accused washed off the blood stains and attempted to destroy the evidence. He also failed to give any proper medical aid to the deceased. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.K.P.Madhu, 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 accusation leveled against him. By no stretch of imagination can Section 304 be incorporated. A reading of Annexure A1 remand report would substantiate that the offence will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 4 recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is not complete. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an appraisal of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the incident occurred while the petitioner was reversing the lorry and the deceased was standing behind the vehicle. Prima facie, I find that the offence under Section 304 IPC may not be attracted. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the findings BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 5 rendered above, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 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 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 6 ## 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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; - (vi) 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. - (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 7 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 Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- rkc/14.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 1985 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1985/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO.287/2024OF MARADU POLICE STATION** **Annexure A2** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSION COURT ERNAKULAM IN CRIME NO.287/2024 OF MARADU POLICE STATION**