NASARULLA N v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the application is allowed, subject to
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 324, 326
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against petitioners (accused 4 and 9), so as to attract offence…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA .P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 690521 BY SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:2:-
O R D E R Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2024 The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre- arrest bail.
The petitioners are the accused 4 and 9 in Crime No.358/2024 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused ( 9 in number and 8 identifiable persons) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The essence of the prosecution case is that: on
28.02.2024, at around 15.45 hours, while the friend of the defacto complainant was speaking on the mobile phone, the accused 1 and 2, out of their previous animosity towards him, and 17 other identifiable persons assembled together and pelted stones on the friend of B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:3:- the defacto complainant. In the incident, the friend of the defacto complainant sustained injuries to his lip, and lost one of his tooth. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
Heard; Sri. Dileep. P.V, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha.S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate the falsity of the crime. Even if the accusations against the petitioners are found to be true, by no stretch of imagination can the offence under Section 326 be attracted, which is the only the non- bailable offence. The petitioners are young students. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application B.A.No.1892 of 2024 may be allowed. -:4:-
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the accused 1 to 19 had, in prosecution of their common intention, pelted stones on the friend of the defacto complainant, who sustained injuries, and lost one of his tooth. She made available the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate to substantiate her assertions. She submitted that if the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
Operative part
On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, especially taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against petitioners (accused 4 and 9), so as to attract offence under Section 326 of the IPC, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, subject B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:5:- to the condition that the petitioners cooperate with the Investigating Officer. In the result, the application is allowed, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioners’ arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v).
The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:6:- interfere with the investigation in any manner; vi). The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (vii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. viii). 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. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. x) 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:7:- 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]. mtk/22.03.24 Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE B.A.No.1892 of 2024 -:8:- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1892/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE -1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 358/2024 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the application is allowed, subject to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 324, 326.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.