High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

Vipinraj v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:1076/2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-02-13
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application No.1076/2024 is allowed. The petitioner Vipinraj is ordered to be released on bail 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 for a month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender or affidavit regarding passport; (v) provision of current and permanent address and mobile number to court and IO; (vi) court empowered to cancel bail on violation; (vii) applications to modify/bail conditions may be moved; (viii) IO may continue investigation and, if necessary, effect recoveries as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vipinraj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan
  • • N.P.Asha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Neema T.V. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vipinraj, aged 19, the sole accused in Crime No. 80/2024 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The FIR, dated 31.01.2024, accuses the petitioner of offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon), and 308 (attempt to cause grievous hurt) following a confrontation with the defacto complainant rooted in prior animosity. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024 and contends innocence, alleging false implication; he argues that even if the FIR allegations are taken at face value, there is no material to establish grievous hurt and that he should be released on bail since the investigation is practically complete. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that the investigation is nearly complete and that the Magistrate rejected bail on the ground of an overt act, with the concern that release could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Magistrate’s order had relied on the overt act aspect, and the state argued for continued detention until progression of the investigation. After considering the facts, the court finds that further detention is unnecessary given the progress of the investigation and lack of material to show risk of flight or tampering, and grants bail with conditions. The order invokes Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify that investigators may continue to recover evidence even while on bail if warranted, and imposes standard bail conditions to ensure accountability while protecting the investigation’s integrity.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal CodeSection 341 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 323 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 324 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 308 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication; even if the FIR is taken at face value, there is no material to substantiate grievous hurt; the accused has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024 and the investigation is practically complete; thus detention is unwarranted and bail should be granted subject to appropriate conditions, as he does not pose a threat of flight or evading the process.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is nearly complete and that the Magistrate’s order denying bail was based on the presence of an overt act; there is a real risk of tampering with witnesses and obstructing the progress of the investigation if the accused were released; bail should be denied to ensure effective investigation and to discourage interference with the case.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to support that investigation can proceed and recoveries may be effected even while on bail.

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 Vipinraj 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 TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1076 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.80/2024 OF Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 743/2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,NEYYATTINKARA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VIPINRAJ, AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SOUNDER RAJAN, RAJ HOUSE, VIVEKANANDA LANE, MANCHA, NEDUMANGADU, KARIPPOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695541 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp smt neema t v ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A No.1076/2024 2 ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** ## **================== Bail Application No.1076 of 2024 ================== Dated this the 13[th] day of February, 2024** ## **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.80/2024 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered alleging offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 31.01.2024 at about 4.45 pm, the accused due to a previous animosity with the defacto complainant (injured) hit the injured with an iron rod and the same was evaded by him and thereafter the accused wrongfully restrained him and fisted on his chest, forehead and nose resulting in an injury and breaking of his spectacles. Thus the accused committed the above offences. B.A No.1076/2024 3 3. Heard; Sri K K Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him and he has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even if the allegations in Annexure 1 FIR are taken on its free value the offences will not be attracted, as there is no material to substantiate that the injured has suffered any grievous hurt. At any rate, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. She contended that the investigation in the case is practically complete. She also contended that the petitioner’s application for bail was rejected by the learned Magistrate as as per Annexure IV order on the finding that there is an overt act alleged against the B.A No.1076/2024 4 petitioner. The learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application stating that if the petitioner is released on bail at the said stage there us every chance that he may tamper with evidence and threaten and influence the witnesses, which will definitely affect the progress of investigation. 6. The predicate offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has not made available the materials to substantiate the injury sustained by the injured. Hence I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 7. On a consideration of the facts and the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.02.2024 and investigation in this case has progressed, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail. 8. 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 B.A No.1076/2024 5 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 them 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 B.A No.1076/2024 6 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 powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the B.A No.1076/2024 7 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** jma/13.02 B.A No.1076/2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1076/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-IA TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 80/2024 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure-IIA TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CORD OF THE PETITIONER Annexure-IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 04.01.2024 ``` ``` Annexure-IVTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN CMP NO. 743/2024 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA ```