Kerala High Court
Mahesh 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. 3038 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1836/2023 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/2nd ACCUSED:
1 MAHESH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O VILASINI YAKSHIKKAVU VILLA KURUMANDAL B PARAVOOR
KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
2 SYAM LAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SYAMALA YAKSHIKKAVU THEKKATHIL KOCHU VEEDU
KURUMANDAL B PARAVUR KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
3 SYAMKUMAR
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SYAMALA YAKSHIKKAVU THEKKATHIL VEEDU KURUMANDAL B
PARAVUR KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
BY ADV K.PREMKRISHNA NAIR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.PRASHANTH M.P, 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.3038 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.3038 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners are the accused nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.1836/2023 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and other accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 308 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2023 at about 8.30 pm, the petitioners along with their friend had inflicted bodily injuries to the defacto complainants after showering with abusive languages. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein with the aid of their friend had inflicted bodily injuries by the help of stones and iron rod carried by them. It is also alleged that the petitioners herein with the aid of iron rod tried to hit the second defacto complainant as a result of which he got injuries to the left side of the forehead. B.A.No.3038 of 2024 3 It is also alleged that the petitioners and their friends had tried to outrage the modesty of relatives of the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2024 and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were arrested on 11.03.2024. The petitioners are innocent and they are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant bail to them is the submission. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submitted that offence alleged against the petitioners are very serious.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions considering the length of incarceration of the petitioners. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners are not necessary. The petitioners can be directed to appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble B.A.No.3038 of 2024 4 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.
8. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.B.A.No.3038 of 2024
5
4. 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.
5. The petitioners 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 petitioners, 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