Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Jibin Joy vs State Of Kerala on 21 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
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3994 OF 2024
CRIME NO.239/2024 OF Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :
JIBIN JOY.,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. JOY, POLICHIKUNNEL HOUSE, MANKULAM P.O.,
MANKULAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3994/2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3994 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.239/2024 of Nedumkandam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 454, 354, 354(B), 392 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 01.03.2024 at about 7.15 P.M. the petitioner along with 1st and 3rd accused in furtherance of their common intention reached near the house of the defacto complainant situated at Birdmetty Bhagam, Nedumkandam in Kalkoonthal village. Thereafter, the 1 st and 2nd accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and the 1st accused demanded money from her and at that time the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused tore her nightie to outrage her modesty and thereby caused a loss of Rs.200/-. Subsequently, the 1st accused robbed a sum of B.A.No.3994/2024 3 Rs.20,000/- from her bag and she lost her gold chain weighing ½ sovereigns worth Rs.20,000/- in that incident and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct. There was money transaction between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant. When the same was demanded by him, a false case is registered, is the contention. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, grievous offences are alleged against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some money transaction between the 1st accused and the victim. But that is not a reason to commit criminal offences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional B.A.No.3994/2024 4 limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a period of 30 days so that the investigation can be completed smoothly.
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.
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. The petitioner 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 petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) B.A.No.3994/2024 5 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. 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.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The 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.
6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a period of 30 days. The petitioner shall furnish B.A.No.3994/2024 6 his residential address where he is going to reside and the phone number to the Investigating Officer. I make it clear that the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit when the Investigating Officer direct him to appear for the purpose of investigation.
7. 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.
8. 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].
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
B.A.No.3994/2024
7
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3994/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 16.04.2024 IN B.A
NO.2634/2024