Kerala High Court
Arun K@Arun Keloth vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 May, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
1
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2306 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
AKASH S.D,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O SARATHCHANDRAN, VIJAYAMMA NIVAS,
KONJIRAVILA, MANAKKAD P.O KALIPPANKULAM, MANAKKAD
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
S.K.ADHITHYAN
REUBEN CHARLY
SHAHINA NOUSHAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VYTHIRI POLICE STATION,WAYANAD, PIN
- 673576
3 CENTRAL BREAUE OF INVESTIGAION ,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COCHIN 682017, IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3
AS PER ORDER DATED 16/04/24 IN CRL MA 2/2024
4 SHEEBA M.R ,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R4 AS PER
ORDER DATED 14/05/24 IN CRL MA 4/24.
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,AMMU M.,SREEHARI V.S.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2754 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
BILLGATE JOSHVA THANNIKKODE,AGED 23 YEARS
S/O JOSE V THANNIKODE THANNIKODE HOUSE CHUNGAM SULTHAN BATHERY
WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
BY ADVS.
RILGIN V.GEORGE
NAZRIN BANU
AKSHARA K.P.
P.DEEPAK (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 6TH FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, PLOT
NO. 5-B, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG, CGO COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, PIN 110 003 IS IMPLEADED
AS R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 8-4-24 IN CRL MA 1/24
3 SHEEBA M. R. ,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 541 IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT 3
ASPER ORDER DTD 14-5-23 IN CRL MA 2/24
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,AMMU M.,SREEHARI V.S.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2306/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3012 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
SRI.NASEEF .V,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O NASER .V ,ALNAS HOUSE ,MOODADI
VILLAGE , THIKKODI (PO), KOZHIKODE (DT), PIN -, PIN - 673529
BY ADVS.
P.MARTIN JOSE,E.ADITHYAN,SAFA C.M.
NESAMUDHEEN,P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R.GITHESH
MANJUNATH MENON
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
AJAY BEN JOSE
HARIKRISHNAN S.
ANNA LINDA EDEN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SHEEBA M. R. ,AGED 44 YEARS,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM
KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 541 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS
PER ORDER DATED 14/05/2024 IN CRL.MA.3/2024.
3
CENTRAL BREAUE OF INVESTIGAION ,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COCHIN 682017,
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,AMMU M.,SREEHARI V.S.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
4
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3023 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
REHAN BINOY,AGED 20 YEARS,S/O BINOY P. ALIAS,PALAKKUDI HOUSE,
PONGUMOOL, CHENATHI, CRA 179, TC 9/345, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV,V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER,PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.,K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
NOURIN S. FATHIMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -
682031, (IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT 2 AS PER ORDER DTD 23,4.24
3 SHEEBA M.R ,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT 3 ASPER ORDER
DTD 14-5-24 IN CRL MA 5/24
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,SREEHARI V.S.,AMMU M.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
5
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3302 OF 2024
CRIME NO.077/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
N. ASIF KHAN,AGED 23 YEARS,SON OF NOUSHAR KHAN, ASIF MANZIL,
KIZHAKKEPURAM P.O., ATIROOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695310
BY ADVS.
S.M.PRASANTH,K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.),T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
SHEHIN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, VYTHIRI,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
3 THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN, PIN - 682031
4 SHEEBA M.R ,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT 4 AS PER ORDER
DTD 14-5-24 IN CRL MA 2/24
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,SREEHARI V.S.,AMMU M.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
6
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3535 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
SREEHARI.R.D,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O P. RAJESH, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, PAYATTADIPACHA, PALODE P.O,
NANNIYODE VILLAGE,THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
P.SANTHOSHKUMAR (KARUMKULAM)
R.K.CHIRUTHA
PARVATHI KRISHNA
SAUMYA.P.S
ASHA MARY KURIAN
LEKSHMI S.R
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OFFICE OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOCHIN
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE COURT
ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
7
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3506 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC/0502024S0002/2024 OF 2024 SC II DELHI POLICE STATION
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.549 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABHISHEK,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O SAJI P K,PAZAYIDATH HOUSE,
KARUNAPURAM,RAMAKKALMED, IDUKKI -, PIN - 685552
2 DONESDAYI,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O DAYI JOHN,THURAKKAL PUTHANPURAYIL
HOUSE,KOTHAKUTHI, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O,KARIKKODE
AMSOM,THODUPUZHA,IDDUKI -, PIN - 685605
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV,V.VINAY,M.S.ANEER,PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.,K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN,NOURIN S. FATHIMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - (CRIME NO. RC/0502024S0002 OF SC II DELHI POLICE
STATION), PIN - 682031
2 SHEEBA M.R.,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED
14/05/24 IN CRL MA 2/24.
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,AMMU M.,SREEHARI V.S.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
8
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3568 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
AKHIL.K,,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O VELAYUDHAN.K, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, NEW
ROAD, AMAYUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679303
BY ADVS.
P.K.VARGHESE
M.T.SAMEER
DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
JERRY MATHEW
REGHU SREEDHARAN
RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SHEEBA M.R (IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2)
W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, KURAKODE,
VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED
AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DTD 14/5/24 IN CRL MA 1/24)
CENTRAL BREAUE OF INVESTIGAION ,REPRESENTED BY ITS
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COCHIN 682017,
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V., VIVEK A.V.,SREEHARI V.S.,AMMU M.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
9
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3607 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
AMAL IHSAN,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.NOUSHAD.A, ARY HOUSE,CLUB KUNNU VTC,MANANTHAVADY
POST,WAYAND DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
V.SHYAM
SAHEERA K.
P.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REP BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682017
3 SHEEBA M. R.,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ((IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DTD
14/5/24 IN CRL MA 1/24)
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.
VIVEK A.V.
AMMU M.
SREEHARI V.S.
Sri.Ramkumar (Sr.), Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan,
Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE COURT
ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
10
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3667 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
1 ALTHAF,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O ASHRAF. S, CHETYAN VILAKON THEKKUMBHAGOM
POST, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691319
2 SAUD RASIL EK,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O ABDUL MAJEED EDATHOLAKURIKKAL HOUSE,
KANNATTIPPADI POST, VENGARA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304
3 ADITHYAN,AGED 20 YEARS,S/O LATE VIJAYAN, PUTHIYOTTUMKARA HOUSE,
AVADIKKA POST,PANTHIRIKKARA PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673528
4 MUHAMMED DANISH,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O NOUSHAD ALI, MEESATTA HOUSE,
PATHAPIRIYAM, EDAVANNA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676123
BY ADVS.
T.SHAJITH,NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SHO,VYTHIRI POLICE STATION,KALPATTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
3 SHEEBA M.R ,W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU,
KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O., HIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IS
IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT 3 AS PER ORDER DTD 14-5-24 IN CRL MA 1/24
4 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REP BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,SREEHARI V.S., AMMU M.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE COURT ON
31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
11
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3705 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC0502024S0002/2024 OF 2024, CBI, SC-II, DELHI,
PETITIONER/S:
ARUN K@ARUN KELOTH,AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN N.E,KELOTH, THAZHE KANIYARAM, MANANTHAVADY
P.O, MANANTHAVADY VILLAGE, WAYANAD, KERALA,, PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
SANTHARAM.P
REKHA ARAVIND
P.G.GOKULNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SC-II DELHI,PLOT NO. 5-B, 2ND FLOOR, A-WING, CGO COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110003
2 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
3 SHEEBA M.R, W/O. JAYAPRAKASH T., PAVITHRAM KUNNUMPURATHU
VEEDU, KURAKODE, VINOD NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
14/05/24 IN CRL MA 1/24.
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.,VIVEK A.V.,SREEHARI V.S.,AMMU M.
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE COURT
ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
12
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4028 OF 2024
CRIME NO.77/2024 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
AMEEN AKBAR ALI U,AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. ISHQUE U, RESIDING AT ULAVAN HOUSE, NELLIJUTHU POST,
PAYYANADU, ERANADU MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676122
BY ADVS.
N.ANAND
N.KRISHNA PRASAD
RAJESH O.N.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE T PLOT NO. 5B,6TH
FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE COURT
ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
13
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4082 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2(S)/2024 OF 2024 , CBI, NEW DELHI,
PETITIONER/S:
1 KASHINATHAN R.S,AGED 25 YEARS
S/O RAJEEV S., THIRUVATHIRA, KIZHAKKUM BHAGAM, CHITHARA POST,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691559
2 SINJO JOHNSON,AGED 22 YEARS
S/O JOHNSON GEORGE, ELAVANKOTTU SNEHABHAVAN, ODANAVATTAM POST,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691512
3 AJAY J,AGED 25 YEARS
S/O JAYAKUMAR, KRISHNAVILASAM HOUSE, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPALLI,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691525
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
VISHNU CHANDRAN
RALPH RETI JOHN
APPU BABU
GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
GEETHU T.A.
APOORVA RAMKUMAR
MARY GREESHMA
RESPONDENT/S:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
Dr.Sri.K.P Satheesan, Sri.Bharath Mohan, Sri.Gokul.D
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2024 AND THE
COURT ON 31.5.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2754/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
14
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
"CR"
C.S.DIAS, J.
=======================
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
=======================
Dated this the 31 May, 2024
st
COMMON ORDER
The accused 1 to 19 in Crime No.RC-0502024- S0002/SC-II/CBI,
New Delhi, (initially numbered as Crime No.77/2024 of the Vythiri
Police Station, Wayanad), have filed these applications under Sections
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to enlarge them on bail.
The above crime has been registered against the petitioners for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 120B,
341, 323, 324, 342, 355, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC',
in short) and Section 4 r/w Section 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of
Ragging Act, 1998 ('Act' for brevity). The accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 16,
17 and 18 were arrested on 28.2.2024, accused No.1 was arrested on
29.2.2024, accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 were arrested on 1.3.2024,
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
accused Nos.2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were arrested on 2.3.2024, accused
No.5 was arrested on 3.3.2024 and accused No.19 was arrested on
9.3.2024. As the applications arise out of the same crime, they were
consolidated, jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case, as per the final report filed
by the CBI before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, is as
follows:
(a) Crime No.77/2024 was registered by the Vythiri Police Station,
Wayanad, on 18.2.2024, under Section 174 CrPC, on a written complaint
filed by Sri.Krishnalal, a student of the College of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences ('COVAS' for brevity), Pookkode, Wayanad, complaining that his
classmate named Sidharthan J.S (deceased) was found hanging in the
bathroom of the dormitory of the Men's College Hostel of COVAS. At the
request of the Police and certain complaints received by the COVAS by E-
mail, an inquiry was conducted by the Anti-Ragging Squad of COVAS. The
inquiry revealed that the deceased was manhandled by his classmates and
senior students on the intervening night of 16.2.2024 and 17.2.2024 at the
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
Men's Hostel due to his misbehaviour towards one of his female classmates
(name not revealed for the sake of privacy and, hereinafter referred to
as 'X'). The Anti-Ragging Squad of COVAS concluded that the deceased was
subjected to brutal physical assault and public ragging. The report was
forwarded to the Police on 22.2.2024, reporting that 12 students (accused
Nos.1 to 12) had ragged the deceased. Based on the report, the first
information report was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 12 for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324,
342 and 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 r/w Section 3 of the
Act.
(b) The case was transferred from the Sub Divisional Magistrate to
the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad. In the
investigation conducted by the Police, it was revealed that eight other
persons were also involved in the crime. Consequently, twenty persons
were arrested, and Sections 120B, 355 and 506 of the IPC were also
incorporated.
(c) Pursuant to G.O (MS) No.70/2024/Home dated 9.3.2024 issued
by the Government of Kerala and subsequent notification
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
FNo.228/21/2024/AVD-II dated 5/4/2024 of the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training),
Government of India, the investigation in the crime was transferred to the
CBI. The case was re-registered as RC No.0502024S0002 under Sections
120-B, 341, 323,324, 342, 355, 306 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
under Section 4 r/w Section 3 of the Act.
(d) The investigation has revealed that the deceased had cleared the
NEET(UG) examination and secured admission to COVAS. Since the rooms
in the Men's Hostel were vacant, the deceased started residing in the Men's
Hotel before entering the second year. He was allotted room No.2 in the
dormitory.
(e) On 12.2.2024, the deceased and his classmates carried out
decorations in the auditorium to celebrate Valentine's Day on 14.2.2024.
After the decoration work, when the students were preparing to leave, the
deceased told 'X' that he wanted to have a private conversation with her. He
requested one of their classmates to leave for the hostel. Thereafter, the
deceased had a conversation with 'X'. But, the deceased misbehaved with
'X' by touching her inappropriately twice, which she resisted and she left to
the Hostel. Then, the deceased followed 'X' and apologised to her.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
However, on reaching the Ladies' Hostel, the deceased again touched her
inappropriately. She again resisted the same and she ran into the hostel.
(f) On the intervening night of 12.2.2024 and 13.2.2024, 'X' informed
about the incident to accused No.12 and a third-year student. In the
meantime, the deceased again apologised to 'X' over WhatsApp.
(g) On 13.2.2024, accused No.12 told one Akshai C.R that he wanted
to beat the deceased. After the Valentine's Day celebration, accused Nos.9,
11, 12, and 13 had a discussion regarding the deceased's misbehaviour
with 'X', and they decided to question the deceased.
(h) On 15.2.2024, the classes were suspended due to the Inter-Batch
athletic meet. The deceased left to Thiruvananthapuram by train. When the
deceased reached Ernakulam, he received a telephone call from
accused Nos.10, 12, and 13 requesting him to return to the hostel to settle
the issue with 'X'. Consequently, the deceased alighted at Ernakulam and
returned to the college on 16.2.2024.
(i) On 16.2.2024, at around 21.30 hours, accused Nos.9, 10, 11 and
12, accompanied by other classmates, took the deceased to a hillock,
opposite the road of the Men's hostel, and questioned the deceased about
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
his misbehaviour. During the questioning, accused No.2 slapped the
deceased and instructed the others to take the deceased to the hostel,
where he would deal with him.
(j) At around 22.50 hours, the accused took the deceased to room
No.21 and made the deceased again confess regarding his misbehaviour.
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18 physically assaulted
the deceased using a leather belt, cable wire of a glue gun, and with their
hands and legs. The deceased was made to remove his trousers and shirt
and was made to remain in his undergarments. Accused No.2 brutally
assaulted the deceased with belts and hands; accused No.5 slapped, kicked
and beat the deceased with the wire of a glue gun; accused No.7 assaulted
the deceased with a belt; accused No.6 assaulted the deceased with hands;
accused Nos.3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 slapped the deceased with hands and
accused Nos.5 and 6 provoked the other students against the deceased.
The accused assaulted, intimidated and humiliated the deceased till
midnight of 17.2.2024.
(k) Later, accused No.2 forcefully took the partially naked deceased to
the courtyard of the Men's hostel, and accused Nos.2, 5, 10, and 11 called
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
out to the inmates of the hostel and questioned the deceased.
Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 humiliated the
deceased and compelled him to confess his guilt loudly in the presence of
the inmates of the hostel. The deceased was also prevented from getting up
from the ground. Accused No.7 threatened the junior students by
proclaiming that if any of them did similar acts, they would face similar
consequences. The assault, restraint/confinement, humiliation/harassment
of the deceased lasted till 1 a.m. on 17.2.2024.
(l) The deceased was taken to the dormitory on the first floor.
Accused No.2 threatened to socially isolate the deceased, which caused
him mental trauma. Accused No.1 slapped the deceased. The deceased
slept the whole day on 17.2.2024 in room No.5 without taking any food. On
18.2.2024, the deceased asked for a towel from his classmate Kishanlal and
went to the bathroom of the dormitory, where he hanged himself from the
iron grill fitted in the ventilation window of the bathroom.
(m) The body of the deceased was taken to the Taluk Headquarters
Hospital, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad and the postmortem was conducted.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
The postmortem findings are consistent with the death due to hanging.
The deceased sustained multiple blunt injuries, including a tram-line
contusion, aged 2-3 days. The investigation has established that the
accused have committed the above offences. Hence, the accused may be
tried in accordance with law.
3. Heard; Senior Advocates Sri.K.Ramkumar, Sri.S.Sreekumar and
Sri.S.Deepak, and Advocates Sri.S.Rajeev, Sri.John.S.Ralph.V, Sri.Varghese,
Sri.Santharam, Sri.T.Shajith, Sri.V.Shyam and Sri.N.Anand, the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the CBI and Sri.Sajith Kumar.V, the learned Counsel
appearing for the de-facto complainant/intervenor.
4. The arguments for the petitioners were led by Sri.K.Ramkumar,
who submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the
petitioners is Section 306 of the IPC. He argued that a reading of the FIR
and the final report would undoubtedly demonstrate that the offence under
Secs.306 is not attracted to the facts of the case because there is no
allegation that the deceased had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
He contended that the deceased had inappropriately groped 'X' thrice, and
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
she complained of the deceased's misbehaviour to her classmates, Seniors
and the Internal Complaints Committee, which in turn caused
embarrassment to the deceased. It is out of this embarrassment and shame
that the deceased took the extreme step of suicide. The learned Senior
Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. State of U.P [(2024) 3 SCC
665] and Y v. State of Rajasthan, [(2022) 9 SCC 269) to fortify his
contentions. He submitted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody
for nearly 90 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final
report has been laid. The petitioners are all students without any criminal
antecedents. They are neither influential nor affluent persons to intimidate
the witnesses or flee from justice. Moreover, the prospects of conviction in
the case are bleak. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
3.1 The above contentions were reiterated by Sri.S.Sreekumar and
Sri.S.Deepak.
3.2 Sri. S. Rajeev drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 16.20
of the final report, wherein it is stated that the role of the other persons is
to be established and further investigation is required to be conducted.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
Therefore, he contended that the final report is incomplete. He placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritu Chhabaria
v. Union of India [(2023) SCC OnLine 509] and argued that the accused
are entitled to statutory bail since an incomplete charge is filed to defeat
the indefeasible right of the accused to statutory bail provided under
Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The learned counsel also drew the attention of
this Court to the statement of 'X" (PW1) recorded on 11.4.2024, wherein it
is recorded that the deceased had inappropriately behaved towards her. He
further submitted that the local Police had registered the FIR solely on the
basis of the report of the Anti-Ragging Squad without any independent
investigation, which shows the hollowness of the crime. Moreover, the
accused No.20 has been granted statutory bail. He relied on the decisions of
this Court in Badusha Nishad v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (4) KLJ
33), Dr.Radhika Kapadia v. State of Kerala and others [2024 (2) KLT
635], Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala [2023 (5) KLT 839], Shyam Krishna
K.R v. State of Kerala & another [2024 ICO 643], Sindhu Paul and
another v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (4) KLJ 882] and the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana [2024 (3) SCC 573] and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
40], to canvass the position that the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish the necessary ingredients to attract the offences under
Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. He also contended that the accused are
youth in the age group of 20--24 years and are languishing in jail for nearly
90 days. They have missed their classes and may lose an academic year. It is
only due to the overt act of the deceased, who misbehaved with 'X', that he
committed suicide. He prayed that the applications may be allowed.
3.3. Sri.John. S. Ralph drew the attention of this Court to the
postmortem report of the deceased detailing the 18 antemortem injuries.
He contended that injuries 1 to 6, the fatal injuries, were suffered by the
deceased due to hanging. The other 12 injuries are minor injuries.
According to him, the postmortem report by itself disproves the
prosecution's case that the accused had brutally assaulted the deceased
because there is no corresponding injury on the body of the deceased. The
opinion of the Asst.Surgeon that the deceased lost his life due to hanging
and the blunt injuries of 2-3 days establishes that the accused are innocent.
He also relied on the statement of the mother of the deceased (CW81) to
demonstrate that the deceased had not complained to his mother regarding
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
any brutality. He also stated that a reading of the final report would
establish that the alleged mensrea of the accused was only to make the
deceased apologise for his misdeeds, and there is no element of abetment
for the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that the petitioners are
entitled to the benefit of innocence and may be enlarged on bail.
3.4 The other learned counsel for the petitioners adopted the above
arguments and prayed that the petitioners may be released on bail.
4. Dr.K.P.Satheesan strenuously opposed the applications. He
contended that the petitioners have committed a very heinous and
gruesome crime of abetting the suicide of the deceased. The petitioners had
brutally assaulted the deceased at the nearby hillock and, thereafter, took
him to the courtyard of the hostel and conducted a mock trial in the
presence of the juniors and classmates of the deceased. The
accused humiliated and insulted the deceased, which led him to resort to
the extreme step. He contended that even though a final report has been
laid, the Investigating Officer is proposing to conduct a further investigation
to ascertain the complicity of the other persons involved in the crime. He
stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of
them tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses, who are
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
mainly collegemates of the petitioners. If the petitioners succeed in their
attempt, it would cause prejudice to the prosecution. He pointed out that
the local Police had registered the crime based on the independent
investigation conducted by them and not and not based on the report of the
Anti-Ragging Squad, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioners. He argued
that considering the nature, seriousness and gravity of the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, they may not be enlarged on bail at this
stage. He further contended that in Ritu Chhabaria case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has not considered its earlier decisions on the point. He
prayed that the applications may be dismissed.
5. Sri.Sajith Kumar also reiterated the contentions of
Sri.K.P.Satheesan. He also relied on paragraph 16.20 of the final report
and contended that since the CBI has left open their right for further
investigation, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail at this point. He
contended that the local Police had conducted a very shabby investigation.
It was at the last moment that the investigation was handed over to the CBI,
who hastily filed the final report. The incriminating materials on record
establish the active involvement of the petitioners in the crime. As the
petitioners and witnesses in the crime are college mates, the
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
petitioners will prevail over the witnesses, which will cause prejudice to
the Intervenor, and justice will be defeated. He placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendupal @ Jhantu v. State
of Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707], Sri.Ram v. State of U.P [(1975) 3 SCC 495]
and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another [(2010) 8 SCC
628] to reinforce his submissions. He prayed that the applications may be
dismissed.
6. The points that arise for consideration in these bail applications
are:
(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on
statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail?
POINT No.(i)
7. Sri. S. Rajeev taking a cue from the statement in paragraph
No.16.20 of the final report, wherein it is stated that the role of the other
persons involved in the crime is to be established and hence a further
investigation is required to be conducted, and relying on the decision in
Ritu Chhabaria's case, contended that the final report is a subterfuge to
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
deprive the petitioners' indefeasible fundamental right to statutory bail
provided under Sec.167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, all the applications have
to be allowed on the sole ground.
8. The above contention is untenable and has to be outrightly
rejected for more reasons than one. The law with regard to the filing of a
complete final report is no longer res integra in view of the emphatic
declaration of law by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.Veeraswami vs Union of India and others [(1991) 3 SCC
655], wherein it is explained as under:
"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under
Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the
investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a
report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and
stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the
names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom
(e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his
bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been
forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain
Musadi v. State of Bihar [(1980) 3 SCC 152, 157 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the
statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if
the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an
intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the
Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to
inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In
fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating
Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material
for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is
accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the
Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence
must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring
home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the
case by adducing acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Subsequently, in Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs. State of
Gujarat and another [2013 (1) SCC 197], J.Chelameswar J (as he then
was) in a concurring judgment of a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made the following observations:
"24. In my opinion, the mere undertaking of a further investigation either by
the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police
officer or pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is
forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under Section 173(2) is
abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the Investigating Agency or the
concerned Court is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the
investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is
required to be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the commission of the
offence indicated in the report."
10. Recently, in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kapil Wadhawan
[2024 (3) SCC 734], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by relying on
K.Veeraswami's case and all the earlier precedents, has held thus:
"23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code
would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the
investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said
right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a
chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though
ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the
chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with
the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It
is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender.
Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied
about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly
committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of
Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the
other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of
chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to
claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete
chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."
11. It is apposite to state that a two-Judge Bench of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Sing Talwar
(SLP (Criminal) Diary No.18272/2023) has directed that all applications
for default bail based on the principles laid down in Ritu Chhabaria's case
to be deferred. Subsequently, on 04.05.2023, a three-judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very same case (Manpreet Sing Talwar), after
converting the special leave petition to an appeal by its order in SLA (Crl.)
No.5724/2023 has extended the initial interim order. Thus, as of today, the
ratio decidendi in K.Veeraswami and Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal cases
rules the roost.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
12. On analysing the final report, I prima facie find that it satisfies the
requisite parameters laid down in the afore-cited precedents. Hence, the
contention that the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail, in view of the
statement in paragraph 16.20 of the final report, is untenable and is only to
be rejected. Consequently, I find point No. (i) against the petitioners.
Point No.(ii).
13. It is trite law that at the stage of considering a bail application, a
detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merit of the case need not be undertaken. There is a need to indicate in
such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail is granted or
refused, particularly where the accused is alleged to have committed a
serious offence. (Read Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7
SCC 528].
14. In light of the exposition of the law, I refrain from embarking upon
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case so as to avoid prejudice to
either side. To avoid repetition, I also desist from reiterating the
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
prosecution allegation, which has already been narrated in the 2 nd
paragraph.
15. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 323, 324, 342, 355, 306 and 506 of
the IPC and Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Act. The only non-bailable
offence alleged against the petitioners is Section 306 of the IPC. It is
profitable to refer to Section 306 of the IPC, which reads thus:
"306.Abetment of suicide. -- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
16. The necessary ingredients to bring an act or omission by a
person charged with the offence under Section 306 are well-settled in a
catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. In a
recent decision in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan [(2021) 19 SCC
144 ], the Honourable Supreme Court has explained the above
provision in the following lines:
"12. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person
committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to commit
suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309IPC. The abetment of
suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
13. Though, IPC does not define the word "suicide" but the ordinary
dictionary meaning of suicide is "self-killing". The word is derived from a
modern Latin word "suicidium", "sui" means "oneself" and "cidium" means
"killing". Thus, the word suicide implies an act of "self-killing". In other words,
act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the
means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.
14. Section 306 IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and
prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section
107IPC which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes
or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "instigate" is to bring about
or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618, has defined the word "instigate" as under :
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an
act"."
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section
306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, it
was observed as under :
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
(emphasis given)
17. Again, in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by the Inspector of
Police [(2019) 3 SCC 315] the Honourable Supreme Court has held
thus:
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that
the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC".
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
[(2009) 16 SCC 605], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
aspect of abetment has observed that, to attract abetment, there should
be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage doing of an act by the
latter. Each person's suicidable pattern is different from others. Each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
19. In the backdrop of the above legal principles, let us now delve into
the facts of the present case to prima facie ascertain whether the
ingredients of the offence under Section 306 have been made out.
20. On an evaluation of the final report, the materials on record and
the case diary, it is discernible that the genesis of the incident is the
deceased's misbehaviour towards 'X, who groped her thrice on the night of
12.2.2024. 'X' complained about the incident to accused No.12, who then
informed accused Nos.11, 10, 9 and 13. The said accused decided to
question the deceased. It is borne out from the records that 'X' had also
submitted a written complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee of
COVAS and an inquiry was initiated. But, due to the death of the deceased,
the complaint was closed. The statements of PWs 2, 3 and 5 bear
testimony to this aspect.
21. On 15.2.2024, accused Nos.10, 12 and 13 telephoned the
deceased and asked him to return to the hostel to settle the issue regarding
his misbehaviour with 'X'. Consequently, the deceased returned to the
COVAS on 16.2.2024. By 21.30 hours, accused Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12,
accompanied by other classmates, took the deceased to a nearby hillock
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
and questioned the deceased about his misbehaviour. During the
questioning, accused No.2 slapped the deceased and instructed the others
to take the deceased to the hostel. Later, at around 21.50 hours, accused
No.2 assaulted him with a belt and hand; accused No.5 slapped, kicked and
beat the deceased with a wire of glue gun; accused No.7 assaulted the
deceased with a belt and accused Nos.6, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 assaulted
the deceased with their hands. Subsequently, the above accused humiliated
the deceased in the presence of the hostel inmates of the hostel. Accused
No.2 threatened to socially isolate the deceased, and accused No.1 slapped
the deceased. The deceased spent the whole day secluded in room No.5 on
17.2.2024. On 18.2.2024, at approximately 12.30 hours, the deceased went
to the bathroom and hung himself.
22. I find sufficient force in the contention of Sri.John. S. Ralph, that
there is an absence of corresponding antemortem injuries on the body of
the deceased, other than for those injuries caused due to hanging as per the
post-mortem report. According to learned Counsel, if the accused had
brutally assaulted the deceased, as alleged by the prosecution, certainly
there would have been corresponding injuries on his body. The further
contention of the learned Counsel, that if the prosecution allegation is taken
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
at its face value, the accused can only be said to have had the mensrea to
chasten the deceased and not to instigate him to commit suicide, is also
found plausible.
23. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case, prima facie, I do not find sufficient material to establish any positive
act on the part of the accused to have instigated or aided the deceased to
commit suicide. It is seen that Section 34 IPC has been deleted by the
prosecution. Nonetheless, that is a matter to be decided after the trial.
24. The objections of the CBI in enlarging the petitioners on bail are
(i) the petitioners may influence the witnesses, since most of the witnesses
are collegemates of the petitioners, and (ii) the petitioners may flee from
justice.
25. In State of U.P., through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8
SCC 21], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that a vague
allegation that an accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may
not be a ground to refuse bail.
26. The CBI's anxiety on the above two factors can be safeguarded by
imposing stringent conditions i.e., by directing the petitioners to surrender
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
their passports and not to enter Wayanad District till the conclusion of the
trial. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the jurisdictional Court can also be directed to expedite the trial.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the broad principles,
while considering applications for bail in Prahlad Sing Bhati v. NCT, Delhi
[(2001) 4 SCC 280], Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
[(1978) 1 SCC 118], Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case and a plethora of
judgments.
28. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012 1
SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person
at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive
nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle
that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody
pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to
time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in
custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
"necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to
the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person
should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty
upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty,
save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail,
one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction
has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to
refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused
has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for
the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal
to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on
the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution".
29. It is also well settled that once a final report is filed, a strong case
has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to
bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
30. Indisputably, the investigation in the case is complete, and the
final report has been laid before the jurisdictional Court. The maximum
punishment that can be imposed on the petitioners in the event of them
being found guilty for the predicate offence under Sec.306 of the IPC is up
to 10 years. The petitioners have now been in judicial custody for more
than 90 days. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and are
all students aged 22 to 24 years.
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
31. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions
made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and my
observations made above, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are
entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.(ii) in favour
of the petitioners.
In the result, the applications are allowed by directing the petitioners
to be released on bail on them 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 jurisdictional court, which shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when directed;
(ii) The petitioners 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
any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on
bail;
(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the
jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on
the date of execution of the bond;
(v) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the
previous permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(vi) The petitioners shall not enter the Wayanad District till the
conclusion of the trial in the above crime.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions
shall also be filed before the jurisdictional court.
(ix) 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
they are 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].
B.A Nos.2306, 2754, 3012, 3023, 3302,
3535, 3506, 3568, 3607, 3667, 3705,
4028 and 4082 of 2024
(x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of
considering the applications and the same shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case to be decided by jurisdictional Courts.
SD/-
ma/sks C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
