Kerala High Court
Midhun 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. 2988 OF 2024
CRIME NO.336/2024 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
MIDHUN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O MANOHARAN, PEDIKAPARAMBIL, VETTUVENI,
KARTHIKAPPALLY , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
690514
BY ADV S.SAMEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KUNDAYAM ROAD,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 689695
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.2988 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2988 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.336/2024 of Pathanapuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 451, 427, 354 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16/03/2024, around 04.00 p.m., the petitioner, who had earlier performed interior work at the defacto complainant's house, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and used abusive language towards the defacto complainant and her mother. It is also stated that the accused assaulted the defacto complainant and went in to the kitchen and moved the fitted cupboards from there and took them in his vehicle and thereby causing a loss of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
B.A.No.2988 of 20243
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner completed the interior works in the house of the defacto complainant. A huge amount is due to the petitioner as balance remuneration from the defacto complainant. The same is not paid. Hence, it was a wordy quarrel and no incident as alleged is happened. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the petitioner, in connection with the interior work done in the house of the defacto complainant, some amount is due to him and he only demanded that amount. The non bailable offence alleged in this case is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the ingredients of Section 354 IPC is there, is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observations about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent conditions.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the B.A.No.2988 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.2988 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) 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).
vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel B.A.No.2988 of 2024 6 the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE bng