Kerala High Court
Athira 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. 2485 OF 2024
CRIME NO.287/2024 OF Vellarada Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
1 ATHIRA,
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. SYAMALA,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
2 AROMAL,
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. SHYLAJA,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
3 SHYLAJA,
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. STELLAL,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
4 SYAMALA,
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O. STELLAL,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU, ADEEKKALAM
KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
BY ADVS.
D.KISHORE
MEERA GOPINATH
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENT/S:
B.A. No.2485 of 2024 2
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VELLARADA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695505
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.2485 of 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2485 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 287/2024 of Vellarada Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 143,149 341, 294 (b), 323, 324 & 308 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2024 at 3.50 pm, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with common intention to commit murder of the defacto complainant, intercepted the lorry of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. When the bother of the defacto complainant intervened, the 2nd accused hit him with an iron B.A. No.2485 of 2024 4 rod and other accused jointly assaulted him and thus committed the abovesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are false. It is submitted that this case is registered as a counter blast to Crime No. 286/2024, which is registered against the defacto complainant and his brother. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that Crime No. 287/2024 and Crime No. 286/2024 are connected. There is allegation and counter allegation about the incident. Which version is correct is to be decided by the investigating officer. 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 petitioners B.A. No.2485 of 2024 5 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 Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on B.A. No.2485 of 2024 6 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. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5 Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 B.A. No.2485 of 2024 7 given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, 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