Kerala High Court
Binuraj T.R 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. 3186 OF 2024
CRIME NO.245/2024 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BINURAJ T.R
AGED 43 YEARS
THUNDIYIL HOUSE, RANNI STORE ROOM PADI, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679323
BY ADV ARUN ASHOK
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT&DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER RANNY
RANNY POLICE STATION, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA,KERALA,
INDIA, 689672, REPRESENTED BY THROUGH THE PUBLLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ATH ERNAKULAM, PIN, PIN
- 682031
3 KURIAN JOSEPH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O V J JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, STORE ROOM PADI,
KAKKUDUMON P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
689711
BY ADV NEENA JAMES
SRI.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.3186 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.3186 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.245/2024 of Ranni Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 308, 427, 511 and 436 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused used filthy language and assaulted the victim and after criminally intimidating the victim.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire disputes between the petitioner and the victim are settled and the petitioner already filed Crl.MC No.3400/2024 before this Court to quash the proceedings. The petitioner also produced a copy of the memorandum of B.A.No.3186 of 2024 3 criminal miscellaneous case filed before this Court as Annexure III. Annexure II is the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, in which he submitted that the matter is settled. The Public Prosecutor submitted that non compoundable offences are there and the settlement cannot be accepted.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the matter is settled between the parties and the petitioner already approached this Court for quashing the proceedings, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions.
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 B.A.No.3186 of 2024 4 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 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) Needless to mention, it would be well within the B.A.No.3186 of 2024 5 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).
vii) 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