Kerala High Court
Fasil.P.I 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. 2648 OF 2024
CRIME NO.218/2024 OF Munnar Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
FASIL.P.I
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM, PANACKAL, MULAVOOR.P.O, MUVATUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
K.K.AKHIL
T. SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN
DAKSHINA SARASWATHY
NANDU S KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.2648 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2648 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 an accused in Crime No. 218/2024 of Munnar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Secs.7 r/w 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995.
3. The prosecution case is that in the morning of 04.03.2024, the 2nd accused who is the owner cum drive of the Mini lorry bearing No.KL-65M 1070 was found transporting 17 packets of wheat powder, 78 sacks of rice and 20 sacks of wheat in his vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted by the police B.A. No.2648 of 2024 3 near Mattupetty and the same was taken into custody, suspecting them to be ration articles. It is alleged that these articles were transported at the instance of the 2nd accused.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is implicated based on the confession statement of the 1 st accused. The 1st accused is already arrested and released on 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 property is already seized. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to co- operate with the investigation.
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 B.A. No.2648 of 2024 4 (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.
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 B.A. No.2648 of 2024 5 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;
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 B.A. No.2648 of 2024 6 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