Kerala High Court
Nazar Valiyil 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. 2191 OF 2024
CRIME NO.177/2024 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
NAZAR VALIYIL,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, CHOLA HOUSE, MOODADI (POST),
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE (DIST)., PIN - 673307
BY ADV K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENT/S:
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.2191 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2191 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 177/2024 of Koyilandy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 323, 354, 452 & 506 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.02.2024 at 5.30 am, when the defacto complainant was at home, she heard voice of the accused from the road, in front of her house. When she came outside, she saw the accused scolding her husband, who was chatting with one Jalesh. So she requested her husband to come inside the house. But, by that time, the B.A. No.2191 of 2024 3 accused trespassed into the house abusing with filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and thereby outraged her modesty. When her husband tried to resist him, he pushed him into the cot and thus caused injuries to him. 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 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non- bailable offences are under Secs. 354 and 452 IPC. The ingredients of the same are not attracted in this case. It is submitted that there is pathway dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. It is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. The non-bailable offences alleged are under Secs. 354 and 452 IPC. Whether the ingredients of the same are attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case is a B.A. No.2191 of 2024 4 matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours. According to the petitioner, there is a pathway dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer once in a week till final report is filed.
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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this B.A. No.2191 of 2024 5 Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;B.A. No.2191 of 2024 6
5 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;
6. 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]
7. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till the final report is filed.
8. 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 SKS