Kerala High Court
Bibin.V.B 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. 2077 OF 2024
CRIME NO.224/2024 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIBIN.V.B,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O V.J. BABY, VALARIYIL HOUSE, RANDUKAI,
VARAMKUZHY, CHAIPPANKUZHY, KUTTICHIRA, THRISSUR.,
PIN - 680724
BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT
RESPONDENTS/STATE & IO:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680684
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.2077 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.2077 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.224/2024 of Kodakara Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substance Act.
2. It is alleged that on getting information that someone is using unauthorised explosives for blasing the rock inside a well owned by one Rajani, W/o.Shibu, the police party conducted a search and seized the explosive substance from the accused Nos.2 to 4. It is alleged that these explosives were used without any authorisation and thus the accused committed the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A. No.2077 of 2024 3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in this case. He is a contractor by profession and he agreed for conducting the work for deepening and cleaning the well of the aforesaid Rajani. According to the petitioner, since he did not used to do these types of works, he subcontracted the above work to the 2nd accused, who was doing these works for the last 15 years. The petitioner produced Annexure A2 written agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd accused. According to the petitioner, he was informed by the 2 nd accused that he is having all the licences and other required clearances for doing such work. Hence the work was allotted to him, is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously B.A. No.2077 of 2024 4 opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner committed the offence and the allegations are very serious. The learned Public Prosecutor also produced the instruction received by him along with a Memo.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of seizing the explosive substance. According to the petitioner, he subcontracted the work to the 2nd accused as per Annexure A2 written agreement and he is not involved in this case. The admissibility of this Annexure A2 is to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
B.A. No.2077 of 2024 5
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 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:
i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
ii. After interrogation, if the Investigating B.A. No.2077 of 2024 6 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 for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
iii. 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;
iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is B.A. No.2077 of 2024 7 suspected;
vi. 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.
vii. 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 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 sp/19/04/2024