Kerala High Court
Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2022
B.A.No. 3306 of 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 3306 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 VISHNU
AGED 25 YEARS
CHAKKANATTU HOUSE ,CHAKKUNJI COLONY DESOM CHENDRAPPINNI
VILLAGE, PIN - 680687
2 RAMESH
AGED 39 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN KUDILAPURAKKAL HOUSE ,CHAKKUNJI COLONY
DESOM CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, PIN - 680687
3 [email protected]
AGED 26 YEARS
SON OF SURESH CHAKKANATTU HOUSE ,CHAKKUNJI COLONY DESOM
CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, PIN - 680687
BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM., PIN -
682031
BY SMT.SREEJA V.,SR.PP
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 3306 of 2022 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No. 3306 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.167/2022
of Kaipamangalam Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging interalia offence punishable
under Section 308 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 19.2.2022 at
10.45 pm, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of
the first informant by possessing a knife. They kicked open the
door of the house and entered into the house and 1 st accused
wrongfully restrained the first informant and slapped on his face.
Thereafter, the 1st accused stabbed on the abdomen of the first
informant and the 1st informant prevented the same with his
hand. It is alleged that the 1st informant sustained serious
injuries on his abdomen. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence. The petitioners are arrested on 7.4.2022.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The
counsel submitted that the petitioners are in custody from
7.4.2022 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioners are
ready to obey any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The
Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. It is true
that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. The
injured sustained very serious injuries. But the petitioners are in
custody from 7.4.2022 onwards. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail on
condition that they will not enter the jurisdictional limits of the
Kaipamangalam Police Station, till final report is filed in the
above case. If there is any violation of the condition, the
prosecution or the victim in this case are free to approach the
jurisdictional court to cancel the bail. If such an application is
filed, the jurisdictional court will consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance to law.
6. 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.
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. Petitioners shall be released on
bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. 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.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. 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.
5. Petitioners shall not enter the
jurisdictional limits of Kaipamangalam Police
Station for a period of 60 days or till final report
is filed, whichever is earlier. If there is any
specific reason to enter the jurisdictional limits of
the Kaipamangalam Police Station, except for the
purpose of appearing before the investigating
officer, the petitioners shall get permission from
the jurisdictional court.
6. 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.
The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the
bail, if there is any violation of the above
conditions.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SKS
