Kerala High Court
Adithyan 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. 3145 OF 2024
CRIME NO.325/2024 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
ADITHYAN
AGED 18 YEARS, S/O BINU,
VALAYILVEEDU, VALIYAPADAM, WEST KALLADA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 521.
BY ADVS.
K.M.FIROZ
DIPU JAMES
M.SHAJNA
P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 521.
BY ADV. 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.3145 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3145 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 1st accused in Crime No.325 of 2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 21-02-2024 at about 7.45 P.M, while the de facto complainant girl was watching the temple festival of Vettiyathode Temple at Vettiyilmukku along with her brother, accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed her. When the brother of the de facto complainant questioned it, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him. When the de facto complainant tried to intervene, B.A.No.3145 of 2024 3 the 1st accused slapped on her face and uttered obscene words. 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, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is submitted that when there is an allegation of commission of Section 323 IPC, the offence under Section 354 IPC would not be attracted. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the offence under Section 354 of IPC is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and B.A.No.3145 of 2024 4 circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed 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.
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;B.A.No.3145 of 2024
5 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. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating B.A.No.3145 of 2024 6 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, 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