Kerala High Court
Rafeek vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:80714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8797 OF 2024
CRIME NO.799/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2024 IN CRMP NO.3545
OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR
PETITIONER/FIFTH ACCUSED:
RAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PEEDIKA VEEDU,
PRADHANI, VADAKKENCHERRY,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683
BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SURESH ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O VELAYUDHAN, PANKULAMBIL HOUSE, KALAMKULAM,
VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ( SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED )
BY ADV ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:80714
B.A. No.8797 of 2024 2
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the fifth
accused in Crime No. 799/2024 of the Vadakkancherry
Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against six
accused persons for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 452 341, 323, 324, 326,
294(b), and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short, 'the IPC'). The petitioner was remanded to
custody on 06.10.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that:
on 22.06.2024, at around 18:45 hours, the accused, in
prosecution of their common intention, had wrongfully
restrained the defacto complainant, and the first accused
pushed him down and kicked him. Then, the third
2024:KER:80714
accused hit the defacto complainant with a stone, the
fifth accused beat him with a beer bottle, the accused 2
and 4 beat the defacto complainant with sticks, the
fourth accused also assaulted with a brick and the sixth
accused caught hold of his neck and the fist accused
stabbed him on the left side of his ribs with a knife.
When the defacto complainant's wife and daughter
attempted to intervene in the matter, the first accused
waved a knife towards the defacto complainant's wife,
and the third accused assaulted her with the brick.
Similarly, the sixth accused slapped the defacto
complainant's daughter. Thus, the accused have
committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil),
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Smt. Pushpalatha. M.K., the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the
2024:KER:80714
accusations levelled against him. A reading of the First
Information Report and the materials placed on record
would show that the offences under Section 326 and 307
of the IPC are not attracted as against the petitioner. The
The specific overact of committing the above offences is
attributed against the accused 1 to 3. The allegation
against the petitioner is that he attacked the defacto
complainant with a beer bottle. In any given case, the
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 24
days, the investigation in the case, so far as the
petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, and the
recovery has been effected. The petitioner has reliably
learnt that the defacto complainant did not suffer any
corresponding injury from his alleged assault.
Furthermore, the petitioner is a person with criminal
antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the application. She submitted that the investigation in
the case is only at a nascent stage. She also stated that if
2024:KER:80714
the petitioner is released on bail, there is every
likelihood of him committing similar offences. She made
available the accident register cum wound certificates of
the defacto complainant's wife and his daughter to
substantiate the injuries suffered by them. She prayed
that the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that the
petitioner, along with the other accused, had wrongfully
restrained the defacto complainant, and the petitioner
hit him with a beer bottle. On a prima facie evaluation of
the materials on record, it is evident that the specific
overt acts are attributed against the accused 1 to 3.
Nonetheless, these are matters to be investigated and
decided after trial. The fact remains that the petitioner
has been in judicial custody for the last 24 days, the
investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, is practically complete, and the recovery has
been effected.
2024:KER:80714
7. In Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024
INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed
in the following lines:
"21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the
Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The
allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the
duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in
accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an
exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present
case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of
bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with
only modification that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means
that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court
cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail
in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."
8. On an overall consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials
placed on record, particularly on considering the fact
2024:KER:80714
that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the
last 24 days, the investigation in the case, so far as the
petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, and the
recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the
petitioner's further detention is not necessary. 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 Tuesday and
Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final
report is laid. He shall also appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or
2024:KER:80714
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 any, before the Jurisdictional Court at the
time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport,
he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the
Jurisdictional Court on the date of execution of the
bond;
(v) 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.
2024:KER:80714
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of
the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by
the Jurisdictional Court.
(vii) 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
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
mtk/30.10.2024
2024:KER:80714
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8797/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 ORDER DATED 09-10-2024 IN CRMP 3545/2024
ON JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS ,ALATHUR
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL DOCUMENT
DATED 22.06.2024 ISSUED BY TALUK HEAD
QUARTERS HOSPITAL ALATHUR EVIDENCING THE
INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANT HEREIN
AND ALSO EVIDENCING REFERENCE TO DISTRICT
HOSPITAL PALAKKAD
Annexure R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL BILL DATED
22.06.2024 RELATED TO AMBULANCE CHARGE
FOR TRAVELLING FROM AVITIS HOSPITAL TO
APPOLLO HOSPITAL
Annexure R2(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 26.06.2024 ISSUED BY APPOLLO ADLUX
HOSPITAL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT
Annexure R2(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL DOCUMENT
DATED 22.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE TALUK HEAD
QUARTERS HOSPITAL ALATHUR IN FAVOUR OF
MINOR DEVIKRIPA
