Kerala High Court
Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3065 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 RATHEESH
AGED 34 YEARS
MODIYUZHATHIL HOUSE, ERUMAKKADU P.O., VALLANA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
2 VAISAKH P R
AGED 27 YEARS
PERUMASSERIL, ERUMAKADU P.O., VALLANA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
MOHANAN M.K.
RADHIKA S.ANIL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA (PO)., PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689533
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2999/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2999 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 PRIJITH RAJAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PRIYA BHAVAN, ERUMAKKADU PO.,
EDAYARANMULA, KIDAGANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
2 ANISH V SOMAN
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O SOMAN, VALLIKKALAYIL, ERUMAKKADU PO.,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, KIDAGANNUR VILLAGE, VALLANA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
BY ADVS.
AJITH MURALI
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
MOHANAN M.K.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA (PO).,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689533
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.3065/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
These bail applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are accused in the same crime and therefore, I am disposing of this crime by a common order.
3. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.396/2024 of Aranmula Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 427 IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 354 IPC is also added is the submission.
4. The prosecution case is that, on 28.03.2024 at
11.pm, when the de-facto complainant and his troop were performing Ganamela at Vallana SNDP Brach No.74, the accused persons wrongfully restrained and verbally abused them and attacked the de-facto complainant. Further, it is submitted that the accused persons also attacked the friend B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024 4 of the de-facto complainant and smashed the key board and thereby suffered loss. Hence, it is submitted that the accused committed the offence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out in these cases. It is also submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. It is also submitted that petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications.
7. After hearing both sides, I think these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out or not is a matter to be decided at the stage of concluding the investigation and also at the stage of trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024 5 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.
9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these case, the bail application is allowed with the following directions: :-
i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024 6 petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v) Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
vi) 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 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).
vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE bng