Kerala High Court
Rajesh S 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. 3103 OF 2024
CRIME NO.221/2024 OF CHITHARA POLICE STATION, Kollam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED PERSONS:
1 RAJESH S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SUGATHAN K, BLOCK NO 180, PERINGAMALA, CHITHARA
P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691541
2 SUMESH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SUGATHAN K, BLOCK NO 180, PERINGAMALA, CHITHARA
P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691541
BY ADV. NAHAS H.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS / STATE OF KERALA:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SMT SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3103 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3103 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.221 of 2024 of Chithara Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under 143, 147, 323, 324, 332, 353, 354 r/w 149 IPC. The offence under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act is also alleged.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 09.03.2024, a woman police Sub-inspector and police man who were on guard duty during a temple festival were assaulted by a group of people under the influence of alcohol after obstructing their official duties. It is also alleged that the accused outraged the modesty of the female Sub- B.A.No.3103 of 2024 3 inspector. It is further alleged that the accused caused damage to the police vehicle to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the case and they have not committed any offence. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to obey any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application and submitted that the petitioners committed serious offences.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is stated that the petitioners and other accused damaged public property to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- each B.A.No.3103 of 2024 4 before the Jurisdictional court as a condition for granting bail.
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 B.A.No.3103 of 2024 5 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) each 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 them 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. Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each before the B.A.No.3103 of 2024 6 Jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender. The deposited amount will be subject to the final decision in the case.
7. 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].
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 DM