Kerala High Court
Kripesh 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. 3216 OF 2024
CRIME NO.102/2024 OF Bedakom Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
1 KRIPESH
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN N.D., NEHRU HOUSE, KUTTIKKOL,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671541
2 SARATH.K.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O KUNHIKANNAN, ALAKKAVU HOUSE, KUTTIKKOL,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671541
3 NIDHIN RAJ T
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O KUNHIRAMAN, ALAKKAVU HOUSE, KUTTIKKOL,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671541
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 3216 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3216 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 petitioners are accused Nos. 6, 8 and 9 in Crime No. 102/2024 of Bedakom Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341 r/w 149 of the IPC. It is submitted that the offence under Sec. 326 IPC is also subsequently added.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim and wrongfully restrained him. It is also alleged that the victim sustained grievous hurt.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the B.A. No. 3216 of 2024 3 learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that no specific overtact is attributed to the petitioners and they are only accused Nos. 6, 8 and 9. The petitioners submitted that they are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners are only accusedNos. 6, 8 and 9. Serious overtacts are attributed to the other accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the bail can be granted directing the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer once in a week.
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 B.A. No. 3216 of 2024 4 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) 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 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 B.A. No. 3216 of 2024 5 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 will appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am 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 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 B.A. No. 3216 of 2024 6 Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663] SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS