Kerala High Court
Binu.V 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. 2976 OF 2024
CRIME NO.144/2024 OF PERAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
BINU.V
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O SANTHOSH, POIKAYIL HOUSE, ADAKKATHODE, KELAKAM P.O
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670674
BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2976 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2976 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. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.144/2024 of Peravoor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 & 411 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that in between 22.00 hours on 29.02.2024 and 09.00 hours on 05.03, the 1st accused trespassed to the building where the defacto complainant is working as Site Supervisor and committed theft of construction materials worth Rs.1,93,632/-. The case against the petitioner, who is a 2 nd accused is that he dishonestly received the above articles with the knowledge that they are stolen articles etc.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.2976 of 20243
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. The counsel submitted that he is a scrap purchaser and he cannot identify whether the property sold to him is a theft article or not. The petitioner submitted that he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The allegation against the petitioner is that he received stolen articles with knowledge. According to the petitioner, he is a scrap purchaser. The stolen articles are construction materials. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner. But, I make it clear that this order is not applicable to the the 1 st accused, who according to the prosecution committed the theft. His bail applicable will be considered separately based on the merit.
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 B.A.No.2976 of 2024 4 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 these case, the bail application is allowed with the following directions: :-
i) Petitioner 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 petitioner, she 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;
iii) 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 B.A.No.2976 of 2024 5 facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v) Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is 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 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).
vii) 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE bng