Kerala High Court
Aneesh V 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. 2625 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0626/2024 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
ANEESH V
AGED 37 YEARS
USHES PERUMKULAM,KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA
TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SMT.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.2625 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2625 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. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.626/2024 of Kottarakkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283, 332 and 353 r/w Section 149 IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that accused persons along with other 8 identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with an intention to obstruct the official duties of officers on duty and deliberately caused obstructions. It is alleged that when the disturbance was started in connection with the festival in Sri Bhadrakali Temple in Perumkulam, the defacto complainant and others tried to pacify a conflict. But, it is alleged that the 1 st accused picked up a stone and struck and attacked the de-facto complainant, which is resulted to sustain injury on the left B.A.No.2625 of 2024 3 forehead. It is also alleged that another accused hit on the defacto complainant on back. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused nos.1 to 4 were arrested and recovery is also effected. It is also submitted that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out is the submission of the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Accused nos.1 to 4 were arrested. It is submitted that the recovery is also effected. In such circumstances, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer twice in a week till final report is filed
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the B.A.No.2625 of 2024 4 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 these case, the 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 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 B.A.No.2625 of 2024 5 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 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 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) B.A.No.2625 of 2024 6 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 bng