Kerala High Court
Dhanush 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. 2828 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1597/2023 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024 IN CP NO.5 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
DHANUSH,
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O SURESH, FLAT NO.63,
TC.39/1550, KARUMADAM COLONY, CHALA,
MANACAUD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
SREEJITH S. NAIR
V.S.THOSHIN
SATHEESH MOHANAN
AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
SEKHAR G. THAMPI
VISHNU V.H.
SUNIL.V.
MAHIMA
NANDU PRAKASH J.S.
ABHISHEK NAIR M.R.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
N.P.ASHA
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.2828/2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No. 2828 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 the 1st accused in Crime No.1597/2023 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 326, 307, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 21/11/2023 at about 5.30 p.m., near Karimadhom colony turf, the accused, eight in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons and attacked one Arshad, Al-Ammen and the defacto complainant and murdered Arshad. It is alleged that, when the 3 rd accused caught hold of both the hands of Arshad and exhorted to kill B.A.No.2828/2024 3 him, the 1st accused stabbed him on his chest, causing a deep injury, resulting in his death. Then, the 2 nd accused hacked Al-Ameen, using a chopper, causing injuries on his hand and accused Nos.4 and 5 fisted him and stamped him. When the defacto complainant intervened, the 3 rd accused hit him on his head using a piece of concrete block and he fell down. It is also alleged that accused Nos.6 to 8 stabbed him. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 22/11/2023 onwards. The investigation of the case is already over and the final report also filed. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant bail to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner is aged only 19 years. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the 1st accused inflicted the fatal injury which resulted in B.A.No.2828/2024 4 the death of the deceased.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody from 22/11/2023 onwards. The petitioner is aged 19 years. The deceased died mainly because of the single stab inflicted by the petitioner on his chest. The other accused are already released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in a case, in which the offence under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act. But it is admitted that the above case is registered long back. Simply because the petitioner is involved in another case, the bail application cannot be denied. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were already granted bail. Accused Nos.4 to 8 are juveniles and they are also released to their parents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this 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 B.A.No.2828/2024 5 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:
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 B.A.No.2828/2024 6 jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 APA