Kerala High Court
Aneesh M S 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. 3105 OF 2024
CRIME NO.334/2024 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.185 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3:
1 ANEESH M S
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O SHAJI M K,
MULLACKAL, ELAPPALLY PO, ARAKKULAM, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685 589.
2 AKHIL RAJU
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAJU P A,
PORIYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN - 685 589.
BY ADVS.
B.SURJITH
RAHANA JOSE
LIJO JOSEPH
AKSHAYA REGHU
ARUN JOSE THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV.SEENA C. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3105 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3105 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.334 of 2024 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki district. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 354A(1), 354A(1)(iv), 294(b), 509, 354, 323, 324, 308, 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 23-02-2024 at 05.15 PM, the petitioners along with others, in furtherance of their common intention attacked the de facto complainant inside the Kaifan Hotel at Mangattukavala. It is alleged that the 1 st petitioner hit the body of the de facto complainant when questioned by her and the 2nd accused used sexually flavoured words. It is also alleged that the accused pushed the de facto B.A.No.3105 of 2024 3 complainant and thereby, outraged her modesty. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a tug-of-war competition in which the de facto complainant's team also participated. It is submitted that the team coached by the de facto complainant could not defeat petitioners' friend's team. It is submitted that there was some wordy quarrel in the spirit of the game. It is submitted that the injured has not sustained any serious injury. It is contended that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition, if this Court grant them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The non-bailable offences alleged are under Sections 354 and 308 IPC. Whether the above offences are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be B.A.No.3105 of 2024 4 investigated. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail.
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. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;B.A.No.3105 of 2024
5 ii. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; iii. 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;
iv. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v. 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; vi.Petitioners shall appear before the investigating B.A.No.3105 of 2024 6 officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 AM till final report is filed;
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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].
viii. 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 ats