2025:KER:30296 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4664 OF 2025 CRIME NO.172/2025 OF PANDIKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 4: 1 RAFEEQ @ MUTHIRI MUTHU AGED 35 YEARS, S/O YAKOOB, MANJERIKKADAN HOUSE, KODASSERI, CHEMBRASSERI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679327 2 ABDUL ASEES @ ASI AGED 32 YEARS, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, THORAN HOUSE, KODASSERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 327. 3 MUHAMMED MAHROOF AGED 36 YEARS, S/O UMMAR, THRASSERI HOUSE, KODASSERI, CHEMBRASSERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 327. BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. BY ADV SEENA C, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4664 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.172 of 2025 of Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) read with Section 109 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’) and also under Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.03.2025 at 10:30 p.m., the 1st accused along with his associates wrongfully restrained the defacto 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 3 complainant and his friends and assaulted them with iron rod. The 2nd accused attempted to struck on the head of the defacto complainant using an iron rod. Since he evaded the attack, he sustained injury on his fore head. It is further alleged that the 1st accused aimed an air gun at the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him and fired at his neck. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 27.03.2025. The co-accused were already released on bail by this Court as per order dated 07.04.2025 in B.A Nos.4566 and 4663 of 2025. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the main overt act 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 4 is attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2. There is criminal antecedent to accused Nos.1 and 2. 7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The main overt act is attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2. There is criminal antecedent also to accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the 1st and 2nd petitioner. So, they are not entitle to bail at this stage, even though they are in custody from 27.03.2025. But, the 3rd petitioner, who is the 4th accused, can be released on bail. Because, there is no serious allegation against the 3rd petitioner. Therefore, this bail application is allowed in part. considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bail Application of petitioners 1 and 2 is rejected and the Bail Application of the 3rd petitioner is allowed with the following directions: 1. The 3rd petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 5 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The 3rd petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 3rd petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. The 3rd petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 6 jurisdictional Court. 4. The 3rd petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 3rd petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even 2025:KER:30296 B.A No.4664 of 2025 7 though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR