Kerala High Court
Sineesh 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. 2413 OF 2024
CRIME NO.182/2024 OF North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
1 SINEESH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O BABU, MADATHIPARAMBIL NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
2 AKHIL.P.B.@AKHIL BINU
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O VINOD, PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
3 NISHAD
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
4 SUJITH@AMBLU
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN,PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
5 SREEJITH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN,PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
6 ABHILASH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O BABU, MADATHIPARAMBIL NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
PRASUN.S
N.A.RETHEESH
B.A. No.2413 of 2024 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARUR, KOCHI, PIN
- 683513
BY ADVS.
M.VIVEK
K.V.DEEPU , SMT.C.SEENA, 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.2413 of 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2413 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. 182/2024 of North Parur Police Station. The above case is registered against the accused alleging offences punishable under Secs 341, 323, 326 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2024, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to assault the defacto complainant and his friends, reached near Thonniyakavu temple. It is alleged that the accused persons restrained the friend of the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries to him. On seeing this, one Midhun and Akhil who are B.A. No.2413 of 2024 4 also friends of the defacto complainant intervened, the 1 st accused beat Midhun on his right hand using an iron rod and he sustained fracture. The 2 nd accused stabbed under the eye of the Midhun and he sustained injury. He also sustained injury over his right ear. The other accused also assaulted the injured is the allegation. 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 incident in this case is happened as a counter blast to a case, in which the defacto complainant and his friends attacked the petitioners. That crime is registered as crime No. 181/2024 of the very same Police Station and this case is registered interalia under Sec.307 IPC. The counsel submitted that now the matter is settled between the parties and they have no grievance against each other. The Public Prosecutor submitted that even though the matter is settled, the settlement cannot B.A. No.2413 of 2024 5 be accepted because the offence alleged are non- compoundable. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that it is a case and counter case, I think the petitioners can be granted bail after imposing 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.
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 B.A. No.2413 of 2024 6 interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they 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. 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; B.A. No.2413 of 2024 7
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 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. 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