Nidhin E.K vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Nidhin E.K vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 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
      MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 3372 OF 2024
        CRIME NO.16/2024 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

            NIDHIN E.K,
            AGED 26 YEARS
            S/O SATHEESH KUMAR, KANNANCHALIL HOUSE, KOTTOLI P.O,
            KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016

            BY ADV M.H.HANIS



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP




     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3372 of 2024
                            2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
               ---------------------
                   B.A.No.3372 of 2024
            ---------------------------
              Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024

                                ORDER

This bail application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 16/2024 of Edakkad Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 307, 332, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 4 r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 08-01-2024, at midnight, while the de facto complainant and party were conducting night patrolling in a Jeep and when they reached at Pothuvachery, the accused Nos.1 to 4, who came in a Car bearing a fake registration, had uttered obscene words, threatened and brandished a sword against them and attempted to murder them and caused hurt to a constable. B.A.No.3372 of 2024 3 The accused caused damage to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the Jeep, which is a public property.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 13.01.2024 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious.

5. This Court considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is in custody from 13-01-2024 onwards. I think indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But that alone is not a reason to reject the bail application, because the petitioner is in custody for about 90 days. The investigation of the case is almost over. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

6. 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.3372 of 2024 4 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.

7. 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 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.

5

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. 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