Kerala High Court
Hareeb @ Quarter @ Arif,S/O.Rahim vs The State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:4994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7368 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1821/2023 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/THIRD ACCUSED:
BAHULENDRA BALASUBRAMANIYAN,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O MURUKESAN, DOOR NO. 6/119,KAMARAJA
THERUVU,SINTHAMANI, MADHURAI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE, PIN - 627355
BY ADVS.
K.JAISHANKAR
K.M.SHISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT 0F
KERALA,ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689645
ADGP.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE,
PP.SRI.C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..9593/2024, 9987/2024, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9593 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1821/2023 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/FOURTH ACCUSED:
MUTHUKUMAR,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. MARIMUTHU, 3/153, AMBEDKAR STREET,
RAMASAMIYAPURAM, KOOMAPETTY,
VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 626133
BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
SHIFA LATHEEF
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.
HASHARURAHIMAN U.
MOHEMED FAVAS
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
ADGP.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE,
PP.SRI.C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..7368/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9987 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1821/2023 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED:
HAREEB @ QUARTER @ ARIF,S/O.RAHIM,
AGED 37 YEARS
PALLIMURUPPEL VEEDU, VALANCHUZHI,
KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & DISTRICT AND
NOW RESIDING AT ALANKARATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,
KULASHEKARAPATHI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O &
VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
T.S.SARATH
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SAMEER M NAIR
SHIFANA M.
SAJESH K. SAM
SINDHU R.NAIR
SAILAKSHMI MENON
JOTHISHA K.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
4
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645
ADGP.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, PP.SRI.C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..7368/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
5
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2025
COMMON ORDER
The applications are filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short,
'BNSS'), by the accused 1, 3, and 4 in Crime No.
1821/2023 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station
registered against the five accused persons for allegedly
committing the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 449, 397, 461, 380, 302, 201, and 414 read with
Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A.No.9987/2024 is
filed by the first accused; B.A.No.7368/2024 is filed by
the third accused, and B.A.No.9593/2024 is filed by the
fourth accused. Since all the above applications are filed
by the accused in the same crime, the applications are
consolidated, jointly heard, and are being disposed of by
this common order. The accused 1, 3, and 4 were
remanded to judicial custody on 06.01.2024, 07.01.2024,
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
and 14.01.2024, respectively.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the
accused persons, in furtherance of their common
intention, had hatched a conspiracy to commit the
murder of one George Unnunni (deceased), who was
running a shop named 'Puthuvelil Stores' at Mylapra,
and in pursuance of their common intention, on
30.12.2023, the first accused had taken the accused 2 to
4 in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KL 04/AC
9963 to the shop of the deceased. Then, the accused 2 to
4 entered the shop of the deceased by acting as
customers and committed the murder of the deceased by
strangulating him. The fourth accused had robbed a gold
chain and Rs.70,000/- of the deceased. The fourth
accused entrusted the gold chain to the second accused,
who in turn entrusted the same to the first accused, who
gave it to the fifth accused, his relative. Thus, the
accused have committed the above offences.
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
vehemently argued that the petitioners are innocent of
the accusations levelled against them. There is no
material to substantiate the petitioners' culpability in the
crime. The applications filed by the accused 1 and 3 were
dismissed by this Court on an earlier occasion. There is a
change of circumstance subsequent to the passing of the
said orders because the charge sheet has been filed and
the case is posted for framing of court charges. In any
given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody
for the last one year, and there is no likelihood of the
trial in the case commencing in the near future. The
petitioners continued incarceration will tantamount to
an infringement of their right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of in India, which is well
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
settled in a plethora of judgments of the Honourable
Supreme Court. Therefore, the applications may be
allowed.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the
petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents. If the
petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of
them intimidating and influencing the witnesses and
tampering with evidence. Moreover, it would send a
wrong message to the society. Hence, the applications
may be dismissed.
6. When the application came up for
consideration on 08.01.2025, this Court had called for a
report from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I
Pathanamthitta (Trial Court) to ascertain the status and
reasonable time period required to dispose of S.C.
No.194/2024, which arises out of the present crime.
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
7. Pursuant to the said order, the Trial Court, by
communication dated 18.01.2025, has informed this
Court that there are 88 witnesses to be examined in the
case. The case stands posted to 31.01.2025 for hearing
under Section 250 of the BNSS. By any stretch of
imagination would take at least one year to dispose of
S.C. NO194/2024.
8. The prosecution allegation is that the accused
he had taken the accused 2 to 4 to the place of incident
and caused the murder of the deceased on 30.12.2023.
Thereafter, the accused had taken away the gold chain
and money of the deceased and sold it through the fifth
accused.
9. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [2012 1 SCC 40],
the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held
that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence
is the presumption of innocence until a person is found
guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the
part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of
former conduct.
10. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate
of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time,
the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a
very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it
appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt
to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that
bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times,
followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even
in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable
Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize
the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
exception.
11. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of
India [2024 INSC 604] 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."
12. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi)[2024 SCC OnLine SC 934], the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is
the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right
has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of
decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following
observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D.
v. State of Kerala[(2022) SCC OnLine SC 929]
"7. The life and liberty of an individual is so
sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered
with except under the authority of law. It is a principle
which has been recognised and applied in all civilised
countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens
of India but also to aliens."
13. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials
placed on record, particularly on considering the fact
that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the
last one year, the investigation in the case is complete,
and charge-sheet has been filed, and further, as per the
report of the Trial Court, it would take another one year
to complete the trial in the case, I am of the firm view
that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary.
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, but
subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the applications are allowed, by
directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them
executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Trial
Court as and when directed;
(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement or threat to the victim or
her witnesses or 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 petitioners shall not commit any offence while
they are on bail;
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if
any, before the court below at the time of
execution of the bonds. If they have no 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 territorial
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without previous
permission;
(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 matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries
on the information, if any, given by the petitioners
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
even while the petitioners 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].
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
mtk/22.01.25
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9593/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30/12/2023 IN
CRIME NO. 1821/2023 OF PATHANAMTHITTA
POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/6/2024 IN
CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 3584/2024 IN S.C. NO.
194/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE I (SPECIAL COURT),
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/08/2024
IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 5381/2024 ON THE
FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE I,
(SPECIAL COURT), PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A. NO.
2313 OF 2024
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2024
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRL.M.P. NO. 1082/2024
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9987/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1821/2023 OF PATHANAMTHITTA
POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS S.C NO.194/2024
ON THE FILES OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17.02.2024 IN CRL.MP NO.676/2024 OF JFMC-
I, PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.03.2024 IN CRL.MP NO.1562/2024 OF
SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23.05.2024 IN B.A NO.2313/2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD WITH
CONSUMER NO.1312106246 ISSUED ON
02.07.2019 BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE,
KOZHANCHERRY TO REJULA MEERASAHIB, MOTHER
OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
Annexure A5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD WITH
CONSUMER NO.1312106246 ISSUED ON
19.02.2021 BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE,
KOZHANCHERRY TO REJULA MEERASAHIB, MOTHER
OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
2025:KER:4994
B.A.Nos7368, 9593 and 9987 of the 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7368/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2024
IN CRL. M/P. NO. 3974/2024 BY THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT -I,
PATHANAMTHITTA
