Kerala High Court
Yadav S vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024
1
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. 3001 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0167/2024 OF Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED
YADAV S,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O., SUBASH,RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL, KARUVATTA POST,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690517
BY ADV ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
CRIME NO: 0167/ 2024, THRIKKUNAPPUZHA POLICE
STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690515
PP ; SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3001 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under .Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.167/2024 of Thrikkunappuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506, 323, 324, 326 and 149 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 25.02.2024 at about 11.00 p.m, the friend of defacto complainant was assaulted by the 3 rd accused in the premises of the punthala temple during the temple festival hours and defacto complainant restrained the 3 rd accused from assaulting his friend. It is alleged that, accused persons due to that enmity towards the defacto complainant and in pursuance to their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked defacto complainant in the presence of the mother of BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024 3 the defacto complainant and threatened, stating that the accused persons will kill the defacto complainant, if he refuses to come out of the property. It is further stated that the defacto complainant came out of his house the accused persons hurled abuses at him and first accused pulled out a wooden log and beat on his left arm and accused Nos. 3 to 5 caused injuries on his back which resulted in a fracture on his left arm.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a long delay of 19 days in registering the FIR. It is also submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent condition. The offence alleged happened on 25.02.2024 and the complaint is registered only 16.03.2024. Of course this is a matter to be explained by the victim at the stage of investigation and trial. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.
7. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024 4 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.
8. 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 appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024 5 commission of which he is suspected;
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.
7. 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE msp BAIL APPL. NO. 3001 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3001/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AT THRIKKUNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT AS FIR NO. 0167 OF 2024 DATED 16.03.2024