Kerala High Court
Abhijith 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. 3233 OF 2024
CRIME NO.264/2024 OF KARINKUNNAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS: 1 TO 6:
1 ABHIJITH, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SURESH, POOVELITHAZHE HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O,
ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
2 JUSTIN, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, , MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
3 BASTINE, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
4 JASMIN TINU, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O LATE TINU
THANKACHAN, INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA P.O,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583
5 GLADIES, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPAN, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
6 THANKACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O AUGUSTINE,
INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPUZHA P.O, KARIMKUNNAM,
THDOUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583
BY ADV. SOJAN MICHEAL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3233 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3233 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.264/2024 of Karimkunnam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 144, 148, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 447, 451, 506(ii), 354 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners and two other unknown persons in prosecution of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, on 23.03.2024 at about 5.30 P.M., it is B.A. No.3233 of 2024 3 alleged that they criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and uttering obscene words. Further it is stated that the 1 st accused attacked the defacto complainant with a knife and the defacto complainant tried to stop him and got injured his fingers. The 2nd accused attacked him with an iron rod, caused injury to his left eye, 3rd accused broke the window glass and damaged the car and gate of the defacto complainant, 4th accused abused him in filthy language, 5th accused threatened to kill him and accused Nos.3, 5 to 8 are also assaulted the defacto complainant and his mother. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence is under Section 354 IPC. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no B.A. No.3233 of 2024 4 offence under Section 354 IPC is made out, is the case. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. After imposing stringent conditions, this Bail application can be allowed.
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 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 B.A. No.3233 of 2024 5 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.
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. Petitioners 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 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;
3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when B.A. No.3233 of 2024 6 required. The 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;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. 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;
6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 A.M. till final report is filed.
7. 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 B.A. No.3233 of 2024 7 granted by this Court.
8. 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].
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM B.A. No.3233 of 2024 8 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3233/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO: 255/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE