Kerala High Court
Kamarudheen K.N vs State Of Kerala on 19 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3177 OF 2024
CRIME NO.60/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.537
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
KAMARUDHEEN K.N.
AGED 28 YEARS
SON OF ABDULLA, BADARIYA MANZIL, PULLOOPPY,
KANNADIPARAMBA POST,
KANNUR DISTRICT 670604, PIN - 670604
BY ADV P.K.RAVISANKAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3177 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3177 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No. 60/2024 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 308 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 16/1/2024 at 11.30 pm, when the defacto complainant and his brother going back home in a car, the accused wrongfully restrained, dragged them from the car and assaulted with wooden reaper and iron stick and caused grievous hurt. The defacto complainant sustained fracture of the left leg and thereby the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and B.A. No.3177 of 2024 3 the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no overt act attributed against the 4 th accused. The main allegation is against the other accused. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence. There is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other accused were already released on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner are very serious and also submitted that the other accused were arrested and granted bail and therefore the petitioner has to surrender before the investigating officer.
7. This Court considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The main accused were already arrested and released on bail. Petitioner is the 4 th accused. There is no criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. The B.A. No.3177 of 2024 4 main overt acts is attributed to the other accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions.
8. 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.
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 B.A. No.3177 of 2024 5 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;
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. 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 B.A. No.3177 of 2024 6 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]
7. 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 APA