Kerala High Court
Rineesh 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. 3104 OF 2024
CRIME NO.103/2024 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
RINEESH
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O RAVINATHAN,
KANDOTH HOUSE, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 670 307.
BY ADVS.
M.ANUROOP
M.DEVESH
MURSHID ALI M.
ABRAHAM RAJU CYRIAC
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV.PRASANTH M P (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.3104 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3104 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. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.103/2024 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 13-02-2024 at 9.00 PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the varanda of the rented house occupied by the de facto complainant and wrongly restrained her. It is alleged that the 1 st accused beat her with hands and accused Nos.1 and 2 pulled her by catching on her neck. It is stated that the accused outraged her modesty by tearing the maxi worn by her. Hence, it is alleged that accused had committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.3104 of 20243
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant's husband is a KSRTC driver, and an amount of Rs.50,000/- is due to the petitioner from him. It is submitted that when the petitioner demanded the amount back, the husband of the de facto complainant abused the petitioner in filthy language and also beat him with a wooden log. It is also submitted that the petitioner sustained deep abrasions on the right foot and he was hospitalized; but no case was registered against the husband of the de facto complainant. It is contended that the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur, against the husband of the de facto complainant. At this stage, a false case is registered against the petitioner is the submission. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.
6. The only non-bailable offence alleged in this case is Section 354 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether Section 354 IPC is made out is a matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after B.A.No.3104 of 2024 4 imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed. With the above condition, the bail can be granted to the petitioner.
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 Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on B.A.No.3104 of 2024 5 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; 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 accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; vi. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays 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, B.A.No.3104 of 2024 6 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].
viii. 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 ats