Allowed

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2020Bail Appl./3318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for two accused already released on bail. They were arrested again after the injured victim died, leading to a charge of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that since investigation was complete, further custody was not justified, and the accused were entitled to bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to surrender within two weeks, execute bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, and appear periodically before the investigating officer.

Sajin Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.114/2020 OF Paravoor Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SAJIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SACHARIA, THEKKEMULLIL VEEDU,

¶9

KONGAL CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE.

¶10

¶11

SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, EDACHILAZHIKAM VEEDU, NEAR FLOARKO,KONGAL CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶15

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691301.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.S.SAJJU, SR PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Dated this the 7th day of December 2020

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime

¶25

No.114/2020 of Paravoor Police Station for having

¶26

allegedly committed the offences punishable under

¶27

Sections 341, 450, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶28

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶29

19.02.2020 at about 9.30 PM, the applicants and the 3rd accused reached the house of the de facto complainant

¶30

and that after they all consumed alcohol, an

¶31

altercation ensued, followed by a scuffle between the deceased and the accused persons. The accused persons

¶32

allegedly hit him with a beer bottle as a result of

¶33

which he sustained some injuries and a crime for

¶34

attempted murder was registered and the applicants were

¶35

¶36

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶37

arrested on 22.02.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, this Court had by way of order in B.A.No.1934/2020 granted regular bail to the applicants on 01.04.2020 considering the pandemic situation. Subsequently, the injured died on 10.04.2020 and an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was also incorporated for the reason that he had succumbed to the injuries that he had sustained in the assault. The investigating officer has reason to believe that the death was caused due to the injuries sustained by the assault that occurred on 19.02.2020. There is no doubt that when a person is released on bail and subsequently a graver offence is incorporated, the investigating officer has reasons to arrest the applicants again even though they were released on bail earlier for a lesser offence. Exercising that jurisdiction, the investigating officer intends to arrest the applicants. Apprehending arrest, the

¶38

applicants approach this Court for anticipatory bail.

¶39

¶40

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶41

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that considering the gravity of the offence that the applicants are implicated of committing murder, they may not be granted an anticipatory bail at this stage, and therefore, the application may be dismissed and the applicants may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer and to apply for regular bail from the jurisdictional court.

¶43

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I am convinced that there are materials to indicate that the deceased died due to the assault that took place on 19.02.2020, even though the death occurred only on 10.04.2020 after the applicants were granted bail by this Court on 01.04.2020. They were in custody for a fairly long time. Custodial interrogation is over and recovery is also complete.

¶44

The applicants cannot, therefore, be subjected to interrogation unless there is a good reason for the

¶45

¶46

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶47

investigating officer to convince this Court that further custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. The investigation as regards the occurrence that took place on 19.02.2020 is already complete and no further investigation on that aspect may be required. Unfortunately, the injured succumbed to the injuries that he had sustained only on 10.04.2020.

¶48

There is no doubt that when a graver offence is detected by the investigating officer, despite the fact that the applicants have been released on bail for a lesser offence, they can be arrested again and remand sought by the investigating officer. I do not question

¶49

that eligibility of the investigating officer to get

¶50

the applicants arrested again for an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. But the investigating officer also will have to convince this Court about the

¶51

reasons why further custodial interrogation of the

¶52

applicants is necessitated. On going through the

¶53

entire records that are available, I find that the

¶54

applicants were in custody from 22.02.2020 to

¶55

¶56

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶57

01.04.2020 and there was sufficient time for the investigating officer to investigate into the

¶58

occurrence and the nature of the offence. Recovery has also been effected. The only change in the circumstances is that the victim succumbed to the injuries attracting an offence under Section 302, instead of an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. That does not enable the applicants to be again incarcerated for a further time till a regular bail is granted by the jurisdictional court. The prosecution has not been able to convince this Court about further incarceration or further custodial interrogation of the applicants for any particular reason. Just because earlier they were in custody for an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. cannot be a reason for further incarcerating them for a longer period because

¶59

an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is

¶60

attracted. Hence, the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶61

¶62

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶63

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶64

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of 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 arresting officer, and on the following conditions:

¶65

i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon for a period of one month or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

¶66

ii) They shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses;

¶67

and

¶68

iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

¶69

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions,

¶70

Bail Appl.No.3318 OF 2020

¶71

¶72

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

Court.

Sd/-

dkr

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jishnu @Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Shareef P Vs State of Kerala

Bhargavi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs Sub Inspector Of Police

Albin Wilson Vs Public Prosecutor

Jimmy George Vs Public Prosecutor