IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022
CRIME NO.157/2022 OF Maranallor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
BINDULEKHA
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. INDIRADEVI,
KULAPPALLIVILAKAM VEEDU, KANDALA AZHAKAM,
MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695512
BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SR.P.P ADV. SREEJA V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3105 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.157 of 2022 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case was initially registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 447, 354, 323, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added after deleting Section 307 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 01.03.2022 at 7.45 a.m, the 2nd accused trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant, caught on her hand and BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 3 attempted to misbehave with her. While so, she escaped and ran inside the house. On hearing the sound of de facto complainant, her husband came out of the house, but the 2nd accused used obscene words and assaulted him. When the de facto complainant intervened, the 2nd accused assaulted her. It is also alleged that the 2nd accused kicked the husband of de facto complainant down when he tried to rescue her. It is further stated that while the husband of the de facto complainant ran out of the property, the 2 nd accused chased him and pushed him down. While so, the 1 st accused came to the scene with a rubber tree stick and using the same hit on the head of the husband of the de facto complainant, by which he fell down. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital. Subsequently he died. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences inter alia under Section 302 IPC.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 4 Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the serious allegation is against the 2 nd accused. The counsel also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is clear that the petitioner intervened because of the sudden situation arised there. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 302 is not attracted in this case. The counsel submitted that the alleged weapon used by the petitioner is not sufficient to cause death. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offence. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and the petitioner may not be released on bail. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 5 nature. But the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards. The petitioner is the sister of the 2 nd accused. A perusal of the incident, it is clear that the major portion of the overt acts are by the 2 nd accused and the petitioner was actually came to the scene subsequently. Section 302 IPC was added subsequently. I do not want to make any further observation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards, the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions.
5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 6 the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
6. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on 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.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 7 or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.a.m till final report is filed in the above case.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 8 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even 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 hmh .
BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 9