Renjith vs State Of Kerala

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5053 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 May, 2022

Kerala High Court
Renjith vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2022
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
        FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 3334 OF 2022
         CRIME NO.221/2022 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION,
                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1430/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
                   CLASS MAGISTRATE -III,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            RENJITH
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O DHARMARAJAN, KUZHIVILAMELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKARA,
            MARAYAMUTTOM, PERUNKADAVILA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124.
            BY ADVS.
            M.JAYAKRISHNAN
            SHAJI MATHEW N.M.


RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682031
    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            MARYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695124
            BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3334 of 2022

                                 2



                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.3334 of 2022
                 -------------------------------
             Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022


                             ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the sloe accused in Crime No.221 of 2022 of Marayamuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) & (ii), 427 and 308 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2022 and from that date onwards he is in custody.

3.The prosecution case is that due to prior enmity the accused with an intention to cause grievous hurt to the de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant on 03.04.2022 B.A.No.3334 of 2022 3 at 7.15 pm at Thottavaram and tried to grab the purse from the pocket of the de facto complainant. At that time his spectacles fell down. It is alleged that the accused trampled the spectacles and torn off his wife's official papers and threatened him with dare consequences. Thereafter on the same day at 7.30 pm, the accused again came and threatened him. Thereafter the accused kicked him down and torn off his shirt and kicked on his chest. It is also alleged that the accused tried to hit his head with a granite stone. It is alleged that the de facto complainant sustained a loss of Rs.24,000/- also.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 05.04.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public B.A.No.3334 of 2022 4 Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offences. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody from 05.04.2022 onwards. The investigation of the case is almost over. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think 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 inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

6. Considering the dictum laid down in the B.A.No.3334 of 2022 5 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 or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to B.A.No.3334 of 2022 6 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am till final report is filed.

6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the B.A.No.3334 of 2022 7 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 DM B.A.No.3334 of 2022 8 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3334/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.221/2022 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION DATED 04.04.2022 AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN CRL.M.P. NO.1430/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE