Kerala High Court
Gopesh 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. 3047 OF 2024
CRIME NO.94/2024 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2024 IN CRMP NO.2928 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
GOPESH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O GOKULAN, ANTHIKKATT HOUSE, KOMBATHUKADAVU DESOM,
PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680682
BY ADVS.
K.I.SAGEER
MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MALA POLICE STATION, MALA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680732
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SEENA C.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3047 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.94 of 2024 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and his mother suppressing the earlier marriage of the petitioner, married the defacto complainant on 02.12.2021. They lived together till 15.06.2023 as husband and wife. The petitioner misappropriated Rs.21,00,000/- belonging to the defacto complainant and thereby cheated her.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations are accepted, the offence is not attracted. It is also submitted that one of the accused is already released on bail. The BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024 3 Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 01.04.2024, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is also a fact that one of the accused is released on anticipatory bail, by this Court as per Annexure-A2 order. Therefore, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024 4
2. The 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE msp BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3047/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 IN CRL.M.P NO. 2928 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHALAKKUDY Annexure-A2 A TRUE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN NO.1664 OF 2024 AND THIS HON'BLE COURT