Kerala High Court
Akhil Kumar 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. 2932 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0449/2022 OF Thiruvalla Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AKHIL KUMAR
AGED 26 YEARS
KALLAMPALLIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689101
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV. PRASANTH M P -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.2932 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2932 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. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.0449/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused legally married the defacto complainant on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, the accused subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was beaten by the accused. It is also alleged that on 17.03.2024, at about 05.P.M, the accused compelled the defacto complainant to participate in the sexual activity when B.A. No.2932 of 2024 3 she was pregnant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marital relationship is inforce even now. The allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed, because it is a matrimonial dispute. The marital relationship can be restored at any stage.
7. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is sent to jail, the situation will further worsen. In such circumstances, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner.
8. 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 B.A. No.2932 of 2024 4 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.
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 B.A. No.2932 of 2024 5 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 commission of which he is suspected;
6. 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].
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by B.A. No.2932 of 2024 6 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 AP