Kerala High Court
Sreenivasan V. 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. 3231 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2024 IN CR NO.213 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SREENIVASAN V. V.
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF SIVAN, EMPLOYEE, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LIMITED,
VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, VALAPPIL, MADIRASSERI,
THRIKUNNAPURAM, TAVANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 679573
BY ADVS.
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
S.M.PRASANTH
SHEHIN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680503
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 3231 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3231 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. 213/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs. 379 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed theft of an autorickshaw.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a financier and he repossessed the vehicle when there is default in payment. The same will not attract the B.A. No. 3231 of 2024 3 offence under Sec. 379 IPC is the submission. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the petitioner, he is the financier and there is default in repaying the amount and hence, the vehicle was seized as per the loan agreement. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the bail can be granted.
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 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. B.A. No. 3231 of 2024 4
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;B.A. No. 3231 of 2024 5
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. 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 SKS