Kerala High Court
Sreekumar 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. 3172 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
SREEKUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/.O. LEKSHMANAN NAIR, MELE CHEMBARA VEEDU,
DHANUVACHAPURAM, NADOORKOLLA, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN -
695503
BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
SMRITHI S.S.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP PRASANTH MP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3172 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.3172 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.396/2024 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i), 326 and 308 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused demanded the informant to leave the house due to the suspicion of his wife i.e, the informant. It is also submitted that because of the enmity towards the informant, on 23.03.2024 at 7.00 pm the accused uttered abusive words against the informant and slapping on her cheek and criminally intimidated her by saying that 'car will be set on fire'. The following day, i.e., on 24.03.2024 at 4.00 am, the accused attacked the informant with a stick on her head and B.A.No.3172 of 2024 3 she evaded the attack of the accused and sustained injury on her nose. Then the accused attacked and pushed her by the hair and hitting her chest and stomach with the stick and she sustained a rib fracture. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2024 onwards and the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence as alleged. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offence against the women and the injured sustained fracture on her body.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The petitioner inflicted fatal injury to his own wife. But, it is a fact that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2024. The B.A.No.3172 of 2024 4 incident happened in connection with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the informant. The matrimonial relationship can be restored at any stage. The continued detention of the petitioner will only aggravate this situation. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdiction limit of Parassala Police Station for a period of 60 days or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. With that condition, I think the bail application can be allowed 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 this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following B.A.No.3172 of 2024 5 directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. 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.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. Petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction limit of Parassala Police Station for a period of 60 days or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. But I make it clear that the petitioner is free to enter the jurisdiction of the Police limit, if there is a demand from the B.A.No.3172 of 2024 6 investigating officer for the purpose of investigation and to appear as ordered by this Court above. The petitioner shall furnish the address where he is going to reside during the above period to the investigating officer within four days from the date of his release.
6. 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